Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews 3110205548, 9783110205541

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Contents
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE. The Lexical and Theological Terms of the Debate
CHAPTER TWO. A New Proposal: The Material Application of Perfection as Definitive Attestation
CHAPTER THREE. Beneficent Christology: The Son’s Solidarity with the Faithful
CHAPTER FOUR. Philanthropia as Christological Key: Preliminary Remarks
CHAPTER FIVE. High Priestly Christology and Divine Beneficence
CHAPTER SIX. The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews
Backmatter

Citation preview

Kevin B. McCruden Solidarity Perfected

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von

James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 159

≥

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Kevin B. McCruden

Solidarity Perfected Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews

≥

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISSN 0171-6441 ISBN 978-3-11-020554-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

For Kerry and Liam !e· !capgto¸

Contents INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Lexical and Theological Terms of the Debate . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Perfection as Glorification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Perfection as Cultic Consecration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Perfection as Moral/Ethical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Perfection as Vocational/Experiential Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CHAPTER TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A New Proposal: The Material Application of Perfection as Definitive Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri: Perfection as Definitive Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perfection as Definitive Attestation in Relation to the Christology of Hebrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 26 37

CHAPTER THREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beneficent Christology: The Son’s Solidarity with the Faithful . . Heracles Imagery and the Motif of Divine Beneficence . . . . . . . The Relevance of Heracles Imagery for Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christ’s Perfection as the Philanthropia of the Son Attested and Displayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 50

CHAPTER FOUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philanthropia as Christological Key: Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . Philanthropia as a Human Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philanthropia as a Divine Virtue: The Testimonies of Asclepius . . Philo and Philanthropia: A Precedent for Hebrews’ Beneficent Portrait of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hebrews’ Relationship to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism . . . . . . .

70 70 72 77

59 67

83 91

CHAPTER FIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 High Priestly Christology and Divine Beneficence . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

VIII

Contents

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 The Perfection of Divine Solidarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 CHAPTER SIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Literary Character of Hebrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122 122 132 139

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

INTRODUCTION An enduring problem posed by the Epistle to the Hebrews concerns the interpretation of those passages in the letter that address the perfection of Jesus (Heb 2:10; Heb 5:9; Heb 7:28).1 In addition to exegetical considerations, these passages broach issues of theological importance as well. On the one hand, it is clear that Hebrews can assess the significance of Jesus in quite exalted, even divine terms.2 The initial verses of Hebrews’ exordium3 in 1:1 – 3, for example, evince an estimation of the Son informed by traditional sapiential language: The Son is depicted both as the “radiance of the glory,” ( !pa¼casla t/r dºngr) and the “impress” (waqajt¶q) of God.4 On the other hand, our author also applies the terminology of perfection to Jesus, and more precisely the idea of perfection through suffering (Heb 2:10).5 For some 1

2

3 4

5

James Kurianal’s brief, but recent treatment of the verb tekeioOm underscores the enduring lack of scholarly consensus on the precise meaning of Jesus’ perfection in Hebrews. See James Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest: Psalm 110,4 as the Substructure of Heb 5,1 – 7, 28 (European University Studies 23/693. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000) 220 – 34. The verb tekeioOm occurs a total of nine times in the letter: 2:10: tekei_sai 5:9: tekeiyhe¸r 7:19: 1teke¸ysem 7:28: tetekeiyl´mom 9:9: tekei_sai 10:1: tekei_sai 10:14: teteke¸yjem 11:40: tekeiyh_sim 12:23: tetekeiyl´mym. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) 50. Hebrews is one of the few NT texts to designate the Son uRºr as heºr in Hebrews 1:8 – 9. Craig Koester observes correctly that Hebrews’ designation of Christ as God functions not as an ontological claim but as a revelatory claim. See Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 189. I concur with Koester, who sees the exordium of Hebrews extending well past 1:4 through 2:4. See Koester, Hebrews, 174 For the use of Jewish Wisdom categories in Hebrews see Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989) 42 – 43 and Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews, 69 – 70. Translations from the Epistle to the Hebrews and the rest of the NT are my own. Greek text taken from Novum Testamentum, Nestle Aland 27th ed. Unless otherwise noted, quotations from the Jewish Scriptures taken from NRSV. I align myself with the broad scholarly consensus that views Hebrews as anonymous. A representative selection of both ancient and modern guesses as to

2

Introduction

commentators it is at this point that an interpretive problem immediately presents itself. For in what sense can the Son, who is the !pa¼casla t/r dºngr either be perfected through sufferings (Heb 2:10) or, for that matter, learn obedience through suffering: ja¸peq £m uRºr, 5lahem !v’ ¨m 5pahem tµm rpajo¶m (Heb 5:8)? 6 Or as P. J. Du Plessis frames the problem, How can the avowed sinlessness of Jesus (see Heb 4:15) be reconciled with any conception of the Son being perfected at all.7 Du Plessis’ observation raises the larger exegetical and theological issue concerning the meaning and function of the concept of Jesus’ perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews as a whole. In his recent commentary on Hebrews Luke Timothy Johnson notes the theological complexity inherent to the Christology of Hebrews, a Christology at once deeply exalted and deeply human in its portrait of Jesus.8 While it would perhaps be an oversimplification to view Hebrews’ Christology from within the categories of human and divine, one cannot help but notice Hebrews’ carefully articulated balance between a distant and intimate Christ.9 For example, Hebrews depicts Jesus as the Son of God who has passed through the heavens (Heb 4:14). But in the immediately following verse Hebrews celebrates Jesus as a High Priest who can sympathize with human weaknesses (Heb 4:15). Similarly, the Son who is the radiance of God’s glory and who has inherited a greater name than the angels (Heb 1:3 – 4) is the same Son who has shared solidarity with humanity (Heb 2:14). Bearing in mind this balance inherent to the Christology of Hebrews, the goal of

6

7

8 9

the authorship of the letter can be found in Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews. Sacra Pagina 13 ed. By Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007) 2 – 6. See also Koester, Hebrews, 42 – 46. The problem centers on what some have argued is the implicit inference to be drawn from passages like Hebrews 5:8, namely, the conclusion that Jesus was not “perfect” to begin with. See Lewis R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation: A Theological Introduction (Louisville: Westminster, 2001) 30. P. J. Du Plessis, TEKEIOS : The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen, 1959) 212. Marie Isaacs is likely correct when she points out that this apparent contradiction did not present a theological problem for the 1st century C.E. author of Hebrews. See Marie Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992) 103. Johnson, Hebrews, 50 – 51. According to Marie Issacs the affirmation of the distance of Christ functions as the defining element in Hebrews’ Christology in the sense that the death of Christ relocates sacred space from earth to heaven. See Issacs, Sacred Space, 184 – 85.

Introduction

3

this study is to demonstrate how Hebrews’ portrait of Christ as perfected functions as one of the principal ways in which Hebrews affirms the solidarity of Christ with the socially beleaguered addressees of the letter.10 My thesis is that the terminology of perfection as applied to Jesus in Hebrews functions to attest to the depth of the Son’s beneficent commitment to, and solidarity with, the socially marginal members of this early Christian community. Stated more pointedly, to say that the Son has been perfected is Hebrews’ way of celebrating the beneficent character of the divine presence as revealed in Jesus’ suffering, death, and exaltation. I would add to this assessment the further proposal that the hermeneutical category I call divine beneficence constitutes a fruitful vantage point from which to gain a renewed purchase on the exegetical significance of Hebrews’ overall priestly portrayal of Christ. This portrayal was likely crafted for an essentially pastoral purpose, namely, to console a community presently experiencing the distress of societal disdain, as indicated in such passages as Hebrews 10:32 – 34 and 12:2 – 3. This study is divided into six chapters. Chapter one focuses on the lexical and theological terms of the debate. After an initial survey of the formal and material definitions of the verb tekeioOm the bulk of this chapter analyzes the four major scholarly proposals typically advanced for explicating the concept of perfection as applied to Jesus. Chapter two advances my own original proposal for understanding the concept of perfection, which is based on the witness of representative selections from the non-literary papyri. I will demonstrate that the papyri utilize the technical terminology of perfection in order to give expression to the material notion of perfection understood as definitive attestation. I will then demonstrate the exegetical relevance of this proposal in light of key sections of Hebrews. Chapter three applies the hermeneutic of perfection understood as definitive attestation to Hebrews 2:5 – 18 and illustrates how the language of perfection functions to attest definitively to the beneficent and philanthropic character of Christ. Given my thesis that Hebrews’ Christology of Christ perfected is profoundly informed by the themes of divine beneficence and philanthopia, chapter four explores the availability of ideas concerning human and divine philanthopia in the literary witness of the imperial period. Chapter 10 While the precise setting of Hebrews’ audience is unclear Heb10: 32 – 34 clearly seems to envision some form of social distress. My proposal for the audience and setting of Hebrews is found in chapter six.

4

Introduction

five provides an exegesis of the high priestly portrait of Jesus and shows how divine beneficence appears in the depiction of Christ’s sacrifice as a personal one. Finally, chapter six demonstrates the applicability of a beneficent interpretation of Christ’s perfection in light of the audience, setting, and literary form of Hebrews.

CHAPTER ONE The Lexical and Theological Terms of the Debate Considered lexically, the Greek verb, tekeioOm, is clearly factitive. That is, tekeioOm denotes the idea of acting upon persons or objects to render them t´keior perfect, whole, complete.1 The fundamental meaning of tekeioOm is, therefore, to bring someone or something to wholeness, entirety, or completion.2 Ceslas Spicq emphasizes this sense of consummation fundamental to the verb tekeio/um when he notes, “…Il s’agit toujours de porter quelque chose ou quelqu’un au but qui lui est assigné.”3 This basic factitive definition underlies what henceforth will be described as the formal application of tekeioOm, namely, the idea of consummation, accomplishment, or completion.4

1 2

3 4

Delling, TDNT 8.79. See also Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 220. Erich Grässer, An Die Hebrer. vol 1. EKK 17. (Zürich. Benzinger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990 – 97) 131; Albert Vanhoye, Situation du Christ: ptre aux Hbreux 1 – 2. Lectio divina 58 (Paris: Cerf, 1969) 321; J. M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews JSNTSup 49 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991) 190 – 91; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebrerbriefes (WMANT 53; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1981) 39 – 49. Ceslas Spicq, L’ptre aux Hbreux, Études Bibliques, vol. 2 (Paris: Gabalda, 1952 – 53) 224. This formal meaning can be gleaned from numerous ancient sources ranging from the Hellenic to the imperial period: Aristotle, Metaphysics 5:16, Nicomachean Ethics 10.4; Thucydides 6.32 (3); Herodotus, 1.120; Plato, Politicus 272d (3); Epictetus, Discourses 4.4.35 (2); Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.1 (8); Philo, De opificio mundi 89 (1), Legum allegoriae 2.61 (1), De agricultura 158 (3), De fuga et inventione 172 (5), De cherubim 35 (2), De Abrahamo 62 – 63 (6), De vita Mosis 1.283, 2.261, 2.275. It should be noted that Herodotus, Thucydides and Plato consistently employ the verb tek´y, which is the more common Attic form. The formal meaning of tekeioOm dominates the witness of the New Testament as well: Luke 2:43; Acts 20:24; John 4:34, 5:36, 17:4, 17:23, 19:28; 1 John 2:5, 4:12, 4:17, 4:18; James 2:22; Philippians 3:12. Luke 13:32, however, deserves special comment since it is the only text outside of Hebrews that applies the verb directly to the person of Jesus to foreshadow Jesus’ impending prophetic death.

6

Chapter One

Supplemental, however, to the formal application of the verb is the material application of tekeioOm.5 If the formal application of tekeioOm suggests the notion of totality, completion, and accomplishment, then the material application conveys various kinds or qualities of completion, e. g., the idea of fitness, adequacy, or maturity.6 On the basis of this latter lexical foundation numerous commentators have attempted to interpret the theme of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews in accordance with a discrete material or theological paradigm.7 The four models illustrated below constitute the most influential of these theological paradigms and the principal scholars associated with each. They are: 1) perfection as glorification; 2) perfection as cultic consecration; 3) perfection as moral/ethical development; and lastly 4) perfection as vocational/experiential qualification.

Perfection as Glorification Taking their lead from the heavy emphasis Hebrews places on the redemptive death of Jesus (Heb 9:26): …mum· d³ ûpan 1p· sumteke¸ô t_m aQ¾mym eQr !h´tgsim t/r "laqt¸ar di± t/r hus¸ar aqtoO pevam´qytai, numerous scholars have argued that the theme of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews bears a close relationship to the idea of the glorification or exaltation of Jesus.8 By virtue of his one sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:12): …oxtor d³ l¸am rp³q "laqti_m pqosem´cjar hus¸am eQr t¹ digmej³r 1j²hisem 1m deniø toO heoO, and as a direct consequence of his suffering and death, Christ has been “crowned” (1stevamyl´mom) with “glory” (dºn,) and “honor” (til0) (Heb 2:9) and has “sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb 10:12). In this view Christ’s perfection denotes the 5 6

7

8

Attridge, Hebrews, 84. Sophocles, Electra 1508 – 1510; Aristotle, Generation of Animals 3.2.752a, 3.7.757b,4.7.776a; Plato, Symposium 192a (5), Republic 6.487 (2), Leges 8.834c (10); Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.4 (1); Epictetus, Discourses 1.15.8 (1); Philo, De virtutibus 157 (8), De specialibus legibus 4.209 (8), De praemiis et poenis 128 (8). See David Peterson’s excellent, concise synopsis in Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ (Cambridge: University Press, 1982) 1 – 20. See also the brief summary in Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 185 – 200. For recent proponents of this view see Attridge, Hebrews, 87; Koester, Hebrews, 124.

Perfection as Glorification

7

triumphant entry of the Son into heaven where he appears before God to intercede on our behalf (Heb 9:24): …mOm 1lvamish/mai t` pqos¾p\ toO heoO rp³q Bl_m and to fulfill the eschatological goal of bringing the “many children to glory” (pokko»r uRo»r eQr dºnam) (Heb 2:10).9 The earliest expression of this model of perfection as glorification stems from the scholarship of J. Kögel. Kögel prefaces his discussion of the motif of Christ’s perfection by first eschewing any argument that would equate perfection with the notion of moral ethical development within the person of Jesus. In lieu of a moral ethical reading Kögel invokes as a discrete methodological principle the proposal that the verb tekeioOm by itself bears a strictly formal definition. That is, tekeioOm indicates the formal idea of totality or completion in the sense noted above.10 With this methodological principle in place Kögel goes on to argue that the verb tekeioOm takes on specific, non-formal meanings only in proportion to the discrete contexts in which the verb appears.11 In terms of the overall Christology of Hebrews Kögel argues that a specific theological meaning informs the application of the verb tekeioOm to Jesus; this meaning becomes clearer once due attention is paid to Hebrews 2:10: For it was fitting for him, on account of whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many children to glory, to perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings (=pqepem c±q aqt`, di’ dm t± p²mta ja· di’ ox t± p²mta, pokko»r uRo»r eQr dºnam !cacºmta t¹m !qwgc¹m t/r sytgq¸ar aqt_m di± pahgl²tym tekei_sai).

On the basis of this passage Kögel contends that Christ’s perfection should be viewed in relationship to the larger eschatological role of the 9 According to Marie Isaacs this theme of glorification is closely connected to what she sees as Hebrews’ principal theological emphasis on the relocation of sacred space to heaven. See Isaacs, Sacred Space, 44. 10 J. Kögel, “Der Begriff tekeioOm im Hebräerbrief im Zusammenhang mit dem neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch,” in Theologische Studien fr M. Khler (Leipzig, 1905) 39: “…Doch davon können wir hier fürs erste absehen, und wir bleiben bei dem vorläufigen Ergebnis stehen, daß tekeiºy ganz allgemein zu verstehen ist.” 11 Kögel, “Der Begriff,” 39: “…tekeiºy ein Allgemeinbegriff ist, ohne einen bestimmten Inhalt. Es ist ein rein formaler Ausdruck, der lediglich äußerlich gilt und nichts Bestimmtes einschließt, welcher erst sein besonderes, näheres Gepräge erhält durch das Objekt, das ihm beigefügt wird, resp. durch den Zusammenhang, dem er sich eingliedert.”

8

Chapter One

Son as “leader” or ( !qwgcºm) (Heb 2:10; 12:2), that is, in relation to Christ’s role as the source or origination of salvation for everyone.12 In his role as !qwgcºr Christ’s person as such is not perfected; rather, what is perfected is Christ’s capacity to be the eschatological agent of salvation for others.13 While the final goal of Christ’s perfection is to fulfill the divine intention for the eschatological glory of the faithful, this intention itself is contingent upon Christ’s own exaltation to glory. As applied to Christ, then, the language of perfection functions essentially to express the theological concept of Christ’s exaltation or glorification. Subsequent to the experience of suffering and death, Jesus enters heaven to sit at God’s right hand (Heb 10:12). Or as David Peterson summarizes his analysis of Kögel’s thesis: “In the final analysis, then, Kögel relates the perfecting of Christ to his exaltation or glorification, by which he opens the gates to God’s glory for his people and thus perfects them.”14 Kögel further refines this interpretation of Christ’s perfection as glorification by insisting that the actual perfecting of Christ nowhere entails an inner ethical development; rather, perfection entails a kind of outer development or fitting of Christ for a salvific task.15 12 The Greek term is applied to Jesus only in two other places in the New Testament. Both occurrences are found in the Acts of the Apostles: Acts 3:15; 5:31. In antiquity the term could denote the founder of a city or more generally the idea of leadership. See Johnson, Hebrews, 96. Attridge translates the noun as “the one who leads the way.” Attridge, Hebrews, 78. “Pioneer” is also a viable translation, considering that Jesus goes on before the faithful in order to lead them along the path to heavenly glory (Heb 2:10; 12:1 – 2). 13 Kögel, “Der Begriff,” 61: “Es lautet: t¹m !qwgc¹m t/r sytgq¸ar aqt_m. Diese Charakterisierung ist eigentümlich und abseits liegend. Sie findet sich sonst nur noch in unserem Brief 12, 2 und Akt. 3, 15; 5, 31. Sie muß ihren besonderen Zweck haben. Es ist deutlich, daß Jesus damit nach seinem Heilandsberuf charakterisiert werden soll…Wenn wir so daß Objekt verstehen, so wird uns auch sofort klar, daß bei dieser Verbindung nicht ein tekeioOm von Jesu Person als solcher ausgesagt wird, sondern in bezug auf das, was der Akkusativ in sich befaßt, d.i. in bezug auf seine Heilsmittlerqualität. Nach dieser Seite allein hat er eine Vollendung erlebt.” 14 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 3. 15 Kögel, “Der Begriff,” 62: “In der Tat, der Heerführerberuf Jesu wurde dadurch an sein Ziel gebracht, daß die Söhne zur dºna gelangten und ihm so eine Schar treuer Anhänger gewonnen wurde. Beides ist miteinander gegeben und beides ist voneinander abhängig. Es beleuchtet, wie hier lediglich eine äußere Entwicklung in Betracht kommt, wenn ich so sagen darf, nicht eine innere, wenigstens nicht als sittliche.” See also, John R. Walters, Perfection in

Perfection as Glorification

9

While it would be inaccurate to state that Kögel’s reflections on the concept of Christ’s perfection represent anything like a majority scholarly view, his model has clearly proved persuasive to many modern interpreters. Ernst Käsemann, for example, also links the concept of Christ’s perfection to the notion of glorification. For Käsemann, however, Christ’s perfection fits compatibly into the mythological tapestry of a comprehensive Gnostic redeemer myth in which Christ appears as a descending and ascending redeemer.16 James Moffat, likewise, sees the “glory” that is humanity’s destiny (Heb 2:10) as pivotal for the accurate interpretation of the meaning of Christ’s perfection. Through the path of Jesus’ suffering, God carries out the larger providential task of bringing the many faithful to glory. For Moffat, therefore, perfection corresponds to the larger divine intention encompassing the eschatological glory of humanity, an intention fulfilled by Jesus.17 Similarly, Moises Silva argues that the notion of Christ’s perfection is best interpreted when viewed from within the broader structure of a motif of eschatological fulfillment. According to Silva, as a result of Christ’s exaltation—an exaltation consequent upon his sufferings—the promised new covenant has finally arrived.18 We see William Lane building upon the observations of both Moffatt and Silva when he argues that such a connection between Christ’s perfection and glorification complements early Christian Christological reflection. More specifically, Lane argues that inherent to the Christological portrait of a suffering and dying Jesus subsequently raised to a state of glory is a pattern of exaltation illustrative of a primitive death/exaltation Christology. As Lane asserts, “The eschatological exaltation of Christ, in fulfillment of the divine promises, New Testament Theology: Ethics and Eschatology in Relational Dynamic (Mellen Biblical Press Series 25, 1995) 143 – 44. 16 Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg, from the 2nd edition of Das wandernde Gottesvolk (1957) (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 144. 17 James Moffatt, Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary. Reprint. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963) 28 – 32. 18 Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976) 68: “This viewpoint is confirmed by the fact that the author links the theme of perfection with that of the new covenant…the writer of Hebrews is unwilling to call the Mosaic economy perfect, not because there was anything intrinsically wrong with it, but because in the divine arrangement it was designed as a shadow, anticipating the substance. The substance, therefore, far from opposing the shadow, is its fulfillment-this is perfection.”

10

Chapter One

constitutes the concrete designation of perfection.”19 Barnabas Lindars echoes such observations when he equates the theme of Christ’s perfection with the larger notion of the completion of God’s plan in the sense that humanity’s eschatological destiny is made possible by Christ.20 A particularly articulate treatment of the model of perfection as eschatological exaltation is offered by Mark Saucy. Saucy argues that in appropriating Psalm 110:1 and applying it to Christ, the author of Hebrews transforms the previously royal connotation of this psalm into a priestly one. By virtue of his suffering and death, Christ has been exalted to the right of hand of God; this exaltation, however, does not enable Christ to reign in any royal capacity. Instead, Christ’s exaltation enables him to serve a priestly intercessory function. In other words, Christ’s exaltation installs him as a priestly intercessor rather than a royal figure. Only in the age to come will the specifically royal vision of Christ be made manifest. Until then, Christ reigns as a priestly intercessor for his faithful followers.21 Such attempts to clarify the motif of Christ’s perfection from the vantage point of variously conceived models of exaltation all share the following merit: they each underscore Hebrews’ own insistence upon the fact of Christ’s glorification and complement the supreme place of Psalm 110 in the epistle. In this regard, we have already noted Lane’s observation that facets of the Christology of Hebrews may reflect an early death/exaltation pattern; indeed, such a christological pattern certainly appears to be present in the epistle, for example in Hebrews 1: 3: …jahaqisl¹m t_m "laqti_m poigs²lemor 1j²hisem 1m deniø t/r lecakys¼mgr 1m rxgko?r. I am inclined to agree, therefore, with the assessments of both James Kurianal and Craig Koester, both of whom argue that the terminology of perfection as applied to Jesus likely functions most generally as a kind of shorthand for the author’s emphasis on Jesus’ transformed existence in which he now abides forever as the perfect, eternally abiding High

19 William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1 – 8 (Dallas: Word Book, 1991) 195. 20 Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge University Press, 1991) 45. See also Victor C. Pfitzner, Hebrews (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997) 44. 21 Mark Saucy, “Exaltation Christology in Hebrews: What Kind of Reign,” Trinity Journal 14NS (1993) 43 – 58.

Perfection as Glorification

11

Priest.22 In other words, to say that Jesus has been made perfect restates the primitive kerygma that Christ has conquered death such that he is now alive in an abidingly transcendent fashion. In other words, Christ’s perfection lies precisely in the attainment of such glorification. Even if we grant, however, the relevance of such an exaltation theme within the context of Hebrews’ Christology, the problem remains: that the idea of glorification does not exhaust all the ways the concept of perfection is applied to Christ. For example, in two of the three instances where the verb tekeioOm occurs in Hebrews, there is a clear connection between the phenomenon of Christ’s perfection and his experience of suffering. In Hebrews 2:10 the author explicitly states that God perfected Christ, the !qwgcºr, through sufferings: di± pahgl²tym tekei_sai. Similarly, in Hebrews 5:8 – 9 Christ’s perfection is couched within the larger context of his having “learned obedience from the things which he suffered” (5lahem !v’ ¨m 5pahem tµm rpajo¶m). To endeavor to dissociate the theme of Christ’s perfection from his experiences of suffering would seem to fracture a connection consciously forged by our author, as seen in each of the examples above.23 The interpretive model of perfection as glorification typically deals with such passages by relegating them to the status of a preliminary phase ancillary to Christ’s exaltation. Indeed, there is a strong temporal feature of this model of perfection as glorification. Perfection specifically follows suffering as a subsequent phase. What I consider to be the principal weakness of this model is that it tends to subordinate— and to that degree diminish—the role of suffering in the perfecting of Christ in order to emphasize his glorification. In this regard David Peterson is quite correct when he observes that Hebrews views Christ’s suffering not simply as the preliminary ground for a subsequent heavenly glorification but as in some sense constitutive of Christ’s perfection itself.24 Thus the argument for reading perfection as indicative solely of Jesus’ glorification/exaltation appears too narrow for the scope intended by our author.

22 Kurianal, Jesus our High Priest, 232. Koester also emphasizes the connection between Jesus’ perfection and the conquering of death. See Koester, Hebrews, 124. 23 Koester, Hebrews, 124. 24 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 68.

12

Chapter One

Perfection as Cultic Consecration Not thoroughly persuaded by the model of perfection as glorification, some commentators have proposed that a cultic interpretation of the motif of perfection makes better sense of the evidence in Hebrews. Noting the technical usage of the term: “to perfect or complete the hands” (tekeioOm t±r we?qar), which occurs in the Septuagint as a designation for the installation of the high priest (“to fill the hand” MT: 7=8( @B:), Theodor Häring argues that in Hebrews tekeioOm similarly functions in the cultic sense. On this view, the perfection ascribed to Jesus by the author of Hebrews denotes essentially the idea of consecration. That is, Christ’s perfection signifies his cultic installation to carry out the high priestly work of redemption and sanctification in relation to the faithful. Complementing numerous usages of the formal application of the verb tekeioOm,25 the Septuagint does indeed offer evidence for the material application of verb in a more technical vein to describe the installation or consecration of Aaron and his sons for priestly service. Such a material, technical application of tekeioOm is found in Torah and deals primarily with prescriptions for the priest. In total there are four occurrences from Exodus, four from Leviticus, and one from Numbers. One observes in these passages what amounts essentially to an amplification of tekeioOm into a larger technical expression indicative of priestly ordination. In the first example from Exodus the verb tekeioOm—in conjunction with the entire phrase t±r we?qar aqtoO—functions to express the idea of consecration or ordination with respect to Aaron and his sons26 : Exodus 29:9: …And thou shalt gird them with the girdles, and put the tires upon them, and they shall have a priestly office to me for ever; and thou shalt fill the hands of (tekei¾seir t±r we?qar) Aaron and the hands of his sons ( Ja· f¾seir aqto»r ta?r fyma?r, ja· peqih¶seir aqto?r t±r jid²qeir7 ja· 5stai aqto?r Reqate?a loi eQrt¹m aQ_ma ja· tekei¾seir’ Aaq½m t±r we?qar aqtoO, ja· t±r we?qar t_m uR_m aqtoO).

25 See Ezekiel 27:11; Nehemiah 6:3, 16; Judith 10:8; Sirach 7:25, 32, 50:19; 4 Maccabees 7:15; 2 Chronicles 8:16; 26 All translations from the Septuagint are taken from The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, trans., Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Branton (Hendrickson, 6th reprinting, 1997)

Perfection as Cultic Consecration

13

In this second example we observe again the linkage between tekeioOm and the notion of ordination in the context of a discussion of the sacred vestments: Exodus 29:29: And the apparel of the sanctuary which is Aaron’s shall be his sons’ after him, for them to be anointed in them, and to fill their hands (tekei_sai t±r we?qar aqt_m)” ( Ja· B stokµ toO "c¸ou, F 1stim )aq½m, 5stai to?r uRo?r aqtoO let’ aqt¹m, wqish/mai aqto»r 1m aqto?r, ja· tekei_sai t±r we?qar aqt_m).

In this third example the relationship between ordination and tekeioOm occurs in the context of a prescription concerning food: Exodus 29:33: They shall eat the offerings with which they were sanctified to fill their hands (tekei_sai t±r we?qar aqt_m), to sanctify them; and a stranger shall not eat of them, for they are holy (=domtai aqt± 1m oXr Bci²shgsam 1m aqto?r tekei_sai t±r we?qar aqt_m, "ci²sai aqto¼r7 ja· !kkocemµr oqj 5detai !p’ aqt_m7 5sti c±q ûcia).

In this last example tekeioOm occurs in the context of a prescription concerning the specific duration required to perform the act of priestly consecration or ordination: Exodus 29:35: And thus shalt thou do for Aaron and for his sons according to all things that I have commanded thee; seven days shalt thou fill their hands (tekei¾seir aqt_m t±r we?qar)” ( Ja· poi¶seir )aq½m ja· to?r uRo?r aqtoO ovty jat± p²mta fsa 1meteik²lgm soi7 2pt± Bl´qar tekei¾seir t±r we?qar aqt_m).

This connection between tekeioOm and the notion of consecration is evident also in the following four passages from Leviticus. In the first example tekeioOm occurs in the context of a prescription concerning the requisite anointing required for the priest before entering the tent: Leviticus 4:5: And the annointed priest who has been consecrated (b Reqe»r b wqist¹r b tetekeiyl´mor t±r we?qar) having received of the blood of the calf, shall then bring it into the tabernacle of witness ( Ja· kab½m b Reqe»r b wqist¹r b tetekeiyl´mor t±r we?qar !p¹ toO aVlator toO lºswou, ja· eQso¸sei aqt¹ eQr tµm sjgmµm toO laqtuq¸ou).

Again, as we observed in the passage from Exodus 29:35, the entire verbal phrase, tekeioOm t±r we?qar, is used in the context of a prescription on the time needed for proper ordination to occur:

14

Chapter One

Leviticus 8:33: And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of witness for seven days, until the day be fulfilled, the days of you r consecration; for in seven days shall he consecrate (tekei¾sei t±r we?qar) you ( Ja· !p¹ t/r h¼qar t/r sjgm/r toO laqtuq¸ou oqj 1neke¼seshe 2pt± Bl´qar, 6yr Bl´qa pkgqyh0, Bl´qa tekei¾seyr rl_m7 2pt± c±q Bl´qar tekei¾sei t±r we?qar rl_m).

Again, we observe the phrase tekeioOm t±r we?qar in the context of a prescription concerning the priestly vestments to be worn during the act of atonement: Leviticus 16:32: The priest whomsover they shall anoint shall make atonement, and whomsover they shall consecrate (tekei¾sysi t±r we?qar aqtoO) to exercise the priestly office after his father; and he shall put on the linen robe, the holy garment (9nik²setai b Reqe»r, dm #m wq¸sysim aqt¹m, ja· dm #m tekei¾sysi t±r we?qar aqtoO Reqate¼eim let± t¹m pat´qa aqtoO7 ja· 1md¼setai tµm stokµm tµm kim/m, stokµm "c¸am).

The verb tekeioOm, in isolation from the rest of the phrase, t±r we?qar, appears in Leviticus 21:10 in the context of prescriptions dealing with the grooming of the priest and his priestly vestments, respectively: Leviticus 21:10: And the priest that is chief among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the anointed one, and he having been consecrated (tetekeiyl´mou) to put on the garments, shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments ( Ja· b Reqe»r b l´car !p¹ t_m !dekv_m aqtoO, toO 1pijewul´mou 1p· tµm jevakµm toO 1ka¸ou toO wqistoO, ja· tetekeiyl´mou 1md¼sashai t± Rl²tia, tµm jevakµm oqj !pojidaq¾sei, ja· t± Rl²tia oq diaMN¶nei).

And finally we note a clear reference to this material technical idea of the consecration of the priest occurs in Numbers: Numbers 3:3: These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests whom they consecrated (1teke¸ysam t±r we?qar aqt_m) to the priesthood (TaOta t± amºlata t_m uR_m )aq½m, oR Reqe?r oR Akeill´moi, otr 1teke¸ysam t±r we?qar aqt_m Reqate¼eim).

As noted above, the genesis of this influential view linking perfection to consecration goes back to the scholarship of Häring, who argues that although Hebrews does not directly borrow the technical expression tekeioOm t±r we?qar as it occurs in the Septuagint, the conceptual linkage between the ideas of perfection and consecration nonetheless has influenced our author in his application of tekeioOm to Christ. For

Perfection as Cultic Consecration

15

Häring this application is corroborated by a close examination of relevant contextual evidence, particularly, Hebrews 7 – 10, where the motif of perfection seems closely associated with the ideas of purification and sanctification.27 Häring’s cultic model has proved influential. Roughly contemporaneous with the work of Häring, Hans Windisch’s commentary also supports a technical reading of tekeioOm suggestive of consecration.28 And even the famous form critic Martin Dibelius had something to offer on the issue. In an argument that combines elements of both the cultic and exaltation models of perfection, Dibelius links the ideas of consecration and perfection by arguing that the sufferings endured by Christ served as the preliminary stage by which God perfected Jesus in the precise sense of consecrating him for all eternity.29 Ceslas Spicq conceded the applicability of the cultic interpretation of tekeioOm, although he was also eager to affirm that the verb is susceptible to other interpretations, such as an eschatological and even a moral/ethical sense, depending upon context.30 Albert Vanhoye also has argued for the viability of the equation between Christ’s perfection and cultic consecration.31 And P. J. Du Plessis similarly observes in the 27 Theodor Häring, “Über einige Grundgedanken des Hebräerbriefs,” in Monatschrift fr Pastoraltheologie 17 (1920) 267: “Aus dieser Untersuchung des technischen tekeioum tar weiqar in LXX ergibt sich für unsre direkte Verwendung jenes technischen Gebrauchs nicht vorliegt, sofern eben tar weiqa¬ fehlt (vgl. Ritschl Rechtf. u. Vers. 3II, 215 f.) daß aber tekeioum überhaupt im Sinn von ‘weihen’ in LXX gebraucht wird, mithin auf den Sprachgebrauch unsres Briefes eingewirkt haben kann. Und daß dies das weitaus Wahrscheinlichste sei, ist wohl im Blick auf die strenge Parallelität (Synonymität im weitern Sinn) von tekeioum mit "ciafeim und jahaqifeim, die oben nachgewiesen wurde, unleugbar.” 28 Hans Windisch, Der Hebrerbrief (Tübingen, 1931) 44 – 46. 29 Martin Dibelius, “ Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief,” in Botschaft und Geschichte, vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr {Siebeck}, 1956) 170: “Der Hohepriester opfert schließlich für das Volk (G); im Bilde Jesus entspricht diesem Akt das Leiden ( !v’ ¨m 5pahem 5, 8)—und damit auch bei diesem Opfer der Erfolg sichtbar werde, heißt es 5, 9: ja· tekeiyhe¸r. Das bezieht sich aber in diesem Zussamenhang nicht auf eine ‘Vollendung’ Christi, von der noch gar nicht die Rede war, sondern auf die Handlung, die dem Eintritt in das himmlische Heiligtum unmittelbar vorausgeht, auf Christi Weihe.” 30 Ceslas Spicq, L’ptre aux Hbreux, vol. 2, 221 – 24. 31 Albert Vanhoye, Situation, 326: “La phrase de Héb 2:10 ne permet guère de discerner une allusion à ce sens biblique. Mais les emplois ultérieurs du même verbe laissent penser que l’auteur l’avait cependant en vue. En 5, 9 en effet, la

16

Chapter One

concept of Christ’s perfection what he calls a “cultic sacral character.”32 More recently, Paul Ellingworth has argued for the appropriateness of the cultic model, observing that the perfect passive participle tetekeiyl´mom in Hebrews 7:28 likely carries the notion of ordination. By virtue of his sacrificial death, Jesus the ordained High Priest and eternal Son allows others to partake of the divine presence mediated through his own death.33 Despite the suggestiveness of such a proposed parallel existing between the ideas of perfection and consecration, the cultic model is problematic on two fronts. The first problem relates to the witness of the Septuagint. Numerous scholars have observed that, although the entire expression, “to perfect or complete the hands” (tekeioOm t±r we?qar) is almost certainly a technical one, it is illegitimate to argue on that basis that the verb tekeioOm itself, when isolated from this entire phrase, connotes the technical idea of consecration.34 The material notion of consecration resides, therefore, in the integrity of the entire phrase tekeioOm t±r we?qar as it appears in the Septuagint and not in the verb tekeioOm in isolation.35 Apart from this criticism, the weakness of the cultic model becomes apparent on more theological grounds. The technical material phrase indicative of consecration as it appears in the Septuagint deals principally with prescriptions surrounding the installation of the priest. In Hebrews, by contrast, the verb tekeioOm occurs invariably in the more experiential context of Jesus’ suffering as described in Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 5:9. And even when the verb tekeioOm appears in a context that deals less directly with the suffering of Jesus and more squarely with the notions of priestly qualifications, Hebrews seems less concerned with establishing Jesus’ qualification to act as a priest than with emphasizing the

32 33 34 35

“perfection” conférée au Christ est mise en rapport étroit avec la proclamation de son sacerdoce (5, 10); elle en constitue la condition préalable. Et en 7, 11 le nom tleisis est accompagné d’une référence explicite au “sacerdoce lévitique”. Ces textes attirent manifestement l’attention sur la resonance sacerdotale du terme.” Du Plessis, TEKEIOS, 217 & 243. Paul Ellingworth, Commentary on Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 397. See Kurianal, 221; Attridge, Hebrews, 85. See also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 162; Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 192. Leviticus 21:10 is an exception since the idea of consecration does indeed appear bound up in the verb itself apart from the entire phrase, tekeioOm t±r we?qar.

Perfection as Cultic Consecration

17

surpassing nature of the character of Christ’s Priesthood when compared with the character of the levitical priesthood. For the author of Hebrews, Christ’s Priesthood is superior not on any legal ground of valid qualification, but because it is inherently superior by nature. This notion of qualitative difference between the two priesthoods is seen especially in Hebrews 7:24 where the eternal permanence of Jesus’ Priesthood, not its legal validity or cultic qualification, marks it as superior to the earlier priesthood of Aaron: b d³ di± t¹ l´meim aqt¹m eQr t¹m aQ_ma !paq²batom 5wei tµm Reqys¼mgm. Second, the cultic reading is frequently at variance with other dominant theological emphases in Hebrews. Such a theological criticism of the cultic model followed closely upon the heels of Häring’s study in the scholarship of Eduard Riggenbach. Riggenbach agrees with Häring that in the context of the Septuagint the expression tekeioOm t±r we?qar certainly functions to express the technical idea of a cultic consecration that qualifies the priest to offer atonement.36 Riggenbach contends, however, that while this technical sense is in keeping with the cultic context of the septuagintal passages, the idea that Christ needed to be consecrated is anything but clear with respect to the theological emphases of Hebrews. For example, Riggenbach makes much out of Hebrews 2:11, where it is explicitly stated that Christ is the one who sanctifies, rather than the one being sanctified: f te c±q "ci²fym. Moreover, Riggenbach argues that the portrait of Christ as depicted in the opening exordium where Christ is presented as superior to the angels belies any notion of Christ having to be put into a right relationship with God: toso¼t\ jqe¸ttym cemºlemor t_m !cc´kym fs\ diavoq¾teqom paq’ aqto»r jejkgqomºlgjem emola (Heb 1:4).37 And in an interesting contrast to Ellingworth, Riggenbach sees in the participle tetekeiyl´mom (Heb 7:28) not an emphasis on the cultic ordination of Christ, but instead a theological preoccupation with the personal character of Christ. As Riggenbach notes, while it is true that Christ does not have the levitical pedigree oq jat± tµm t²nim )aq½m k´ceshai (Heb 7:11), he is nonetheless personally superior to the levitical priests because of his Eigenart or character. Unlike the levitical priests, Christ is 36 Eduard Riggenbach, “Der Begriff der teke¸ysir im Hebräerbrief. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Einwirkung der Mysterienreligion auf Sprache und Gedankenwelt des Neuen Testaments,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 34 (1923) 185 – 86 37 Riggenbach, “Der Begriff der teke¸ysir,” 193.

18

Chapter One

not beset by all manner of weaknesses conceived of primarily as susceptibility to sin and death: Der charakteristische Unterschied des Hohepriestertums Christi gegenüber dem aaronitischen liegt nach 7, 11 darin, daß es nicht auf gesetzlicher Anordnung, sondern auf persönlicher Eigenart beruht, daß sein Träger nicht ein der Schwachheit unterworfener und darum auch der Sünde und dem Todesgeschik verfallener Mensch, sondern der der Versuchung und dem Tod enthobene, in jeder Beziehung zur Vollkommenheit des Lebenstandes gelangte Sohn ist.38

Riggenbach correctly observes, then, that the portrait of Christ as High Priest does not necessarily entail an uncomplicated connection between the concepts of perfection and consecration. What sets Christ apart from ordinary high priests is not the office of the priesthood itself, but the kind of Priest Christ is.

Perfection as Moral/Ethical Development Riggenbach’s emphasis upon the connection between perfection and the personal character of Christ brings us to another interpretive model: the moral ethical model of Christ’s perfection. The moral ethical model arises almost naturally from an appreciation of the supremely human portrayals of Jesus which abound in Hebrews.39 While the moral/ethical model was quite popular in the 19th century, it is a view few scholars would seriously hold today.40 According to this model, Christ’s perfection suggests the notion of an authentic development or transformation within the personality of Jesus himself. Brooke Foss Westcott can argue, for example, that the application of the verb tekei_sai to

38 Riggenbach, „Der Begriff der teke¸ysir,“ 191: „According to Hebrews 7:11, the characteristic distinction between Christ’s High Priesthood as contrasted with that of the line of Aaron rests in this: that it does not consist in a legal ordinance, but consists instead in personal character. Removed from both temptation and death, in every respect the Son has attained abiding life, since he is subject neither to weakness, nor thereby to the sins and the destiny of death for corrupted humanity.“ Translation my own. 39 See Koester, Hebrews, 106 – 07. 40 Bernhard Weiss, Handbuch ber den Brief an die Hebrer (Meyer K; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888, 1897) 13; Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 224.

Perfection as Moral/Ethical Development

19

Jesus in Hebrews 2:10 denotes “the full moral perfection of His humanity.”41 Despite the relative scarcity of scholars who see the matter in this light, the moral/ethical reading is not without its more modern proponents. Allen Wikgren notes what he takes to be a strong emphasis in Hebrews on the moral perfection of Jesus, in spite of the admitted theological difficulties such a reading might entail.42 And Oscar Cullmann argues that one of the most distinctive features of Hebrews resides in its presentation of Jesus as a High Priest who participates fully in humanity. According to Cullmann, such participation clearly presupposes moral development within the personality of Jesus.43 In a similar vein of argument, Philip Hughes affirms the reality of a progressive development or achievement with respect to Jesus in terms of the idea of Jesus learning obedience.44 The most obvious difficulty with this rather straightforward interpretation of the motif of perfection is that its emphasis upon inner development seems to contradict those passages in Hebrews that speak to Christ’s supreme stature.45 These are passages that emphasize, for example, Christ’s sinlessness: wyq·r "laqt¸ar (Heb 4:15) and his “holy” (fsior), “blameless” (%jajor), and “undefiled” ( !l¸amtor) character (Heb 7:26). Such passages would appear to belie any necessity for the development of Christ’s personhood. If anything, they suggest the finished state of Christ’s character for the author of the epistle. Another more fundamental difficulty with the moral/ethical reading involves the whole issue of ancient conceptions of identity. The general view in antiquity presumed that character was fixed.46 In other words, while it was generally believed that an individual’s character could very well be displayed given time, it was not assumed that personality could 41 Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (3rd. ed.; London: MacMillan, 1909) 49. See also Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie, Charles A. M. Hall (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964) 92 – 93. 42 Allen Wikgren, “Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 6 (1960) 160 – 61. 43 Cullmann, Christology, 93 – 97. 44 Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 187. 45 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 188. 46 David Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987) 85.

20

Chapter One

actually develop or transform. Stated simply, one’s actions manifested one’s abiding character. In light of this ancient perspective on the constitution of the personality, we must conclude that the argument that Christ’s perfection denotes a moral/ethical development within the context of his inner personhood is in some ways a projection of modern psychological methodology into the Greco-Roman period.

Perfection as Vocational/Experiential Qualification A more promising interpretation of the motif of perfection is that proposed by David Peterson in his influential work Hebrews and Perfection. Peterson explores the subject of Christ’s perfection in light of an interpretive model closely associated with the moral/ethical reading, but nonetheless quite distinct from it, namely: a vocational model of perfection. The model is not entirely unique to Peterson, however. One may cite its earliest expression in the work of Otto Michel, who introduced the substance of the vocational idea by noting how the motif of perfection is tied closely to the idea of the testing and proving of Christ.47 According to this vocational model, Christ’s perfection, his “berufliche Vollendung,” to use Michel’s phrase, signifies an entire process of development forged through the experience of suffering and temptation, and which culminates in the Son’s qualification to become a merciful High Priest and Savior for his people.48 For his part, Peterson argues that the author of Hebrews views the sufferings endured by Jesus as a kind of experiential test and education into the depths of authentic obedience to the Father.49 Having become acquainted with the true 47 Otto Michel, “Die Lehre von der Christlichen Volkommenheit,” in Theologische Studien und Kritiken: eine Zeitschrift fr das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie 106 (1934). “…Sündlosigkeit und Gehorsam sind der Ausdruck der inneren Vollendung, sind die Zeichen der bewahrten Sohnschaft; Kreuz und Erhöhung sind die Ereignisse, in denen die äußere, berufliche Vollendung erreicht wird.” pg.139. The vocational interpretation is also touched upon by Moffat and later by William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951) 101. More recently, the vocational model has been espoused by Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997) 41. 48 See Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 67. 49 See Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 94. John R. Walters similarly proposes a link between perfection terminology and the notion of education; see Walters, Perfection, 88.

Perfection as Vocational/Experiential Qualification

21

depths of obedience by virtue of the temptations and sufferings he has endured, the Son becomes pre-eminently qualified to carry out his High Priestly activity. While the theme of learning through suffering was a very ancient topos, which was frequently applied to the inexperienced and foolish, in the case of Christ it denotes a positive theological insight: through his experience of suffering Jesus experientially learns and carries through to the end authentic obedience to the will of the Father.50 Peterson’s contribution has a great deal to commend it. First, it moves beyond the notion of perfection conceived as strict moral/ethical development as found in such scholars as Westcott and Cullmann in favor of the idea of fitting or vocationally qualifying Christ for his salvific task. Second, it stresses the entire incarnational event, not just a portion thereof, as formative for Christ’s perfection. That is, Christ’s perfection implies the fulfillment of a comprehensive redemptive process, which includes the experiences of suffering and death along with Christ’s exaltation to glory.51 Integral to this process of redemption is the necessity for suffering, an experience that becomes the training ground, as it were, for the Son’s full appreciation of what obedience to the Father entails. Still, even Peterson himself admits that a vocational model of perfection assumes at least to some degree the notion of the necessity for Christ’s development, if only in the sense of Christ having to prove himself.52 To this extent, Peterson’s model opens itself to the same criticism brought to bear against the moral/ethical model: How can a notion of development, whether conceived along moral or vocational lines, rest harmoniously alongside those passages in the epistle that emphasize such qualities as Christ’s sinlessness (Heb 4:15) or “undefiled” character (Heb 7:26)? The real value and insight of Peterson’s vocational model lies not so much in its applicability to Jesus, but to the recipient of the letter.53 Hebrews 12:7 – 11 is illustrative in this regard. In these passages the author exhorts the members of the community to persevere under “discipline”(paide¸am) (Heb 12:7), since such discipline constitutes the manner in which they become “trained” (ceculmasl´moir) (Heb 12:11) to share in God’s “holiness”("ciºtgtor aqtoO) (12:10). It is precisely 50 See Lane, Hebrews: A Call to Commitment (Philadelphia: Hendrickson, 1985) 81 – 82. 51 See Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 67. 52 See Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 103. 53 See also Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 194.

22

Chapter One

with reference to the community that Peterson’s model of vocational fitness or qualification seems most suggestive, in the sense that the sufferings of the faithful are meant to serve as the discipline that trains or qualifies them for participation in the divine holiness (see Heb 12:10 – 11). By contrast, God does not discipline Christ; rather God perfects him tekei_sai (Heb 2:10). Nor does the author of Hebrews ever state that Christ needed to be trained or qualified by means of his sufferings; he was only “tested” (peiqashe¸r) by them (Heb 2:18). And significantly the results of such testing are conceived of by the author of Hebrews not so much in terms of Christ’s realization of radical obedience, but more in terms of Christ’s appreciation of human need (see Heb 2:18 & 4:15). Indeed, such testing reveals Jesus’ loving-kindness, a quality which is of supreme importance for the author of Hebrews as we shall see in chapters three and five. In the final analysis, Peterson’s vocational model of perfection appears to lend itself more to an appreciation of what constitutes the perfection of the faithful rather than the perfection of Christ. Foundational to Peterson’s vocational model is what Atttridge has described as an existential or experiential model of perfection54 One of the earliest and most articulate expressions of this model can be found in the scholarship of George Bradford Caird. In a manner reminiscent of Kögel, Caird prefaces his statements on the perfection of Christ by affirming that the growth to completeness envisaged in Jesus’ perfection is not a moral one.55 Rather, Christ’s perfection entails a clear experiential development in the sense that through his suffering and death Christ grows into a full identification with humanity. Indeed, by personally experiencing what obedience entailed, Christ not only identified with humanity but became the “most fully human person who has ever lived.”56 Anthony Hoekma says much the same. Like Caird, Hoekma agrees that Jesus’ perfection entails a kind of development or growth that transcends the notion of moral development. Through his sufferings and temptations, Christ learns “experientially” the true meaning of 54 Attridge, Hebrews, 87. 55 George Bradford Caird, “Just Men Made Perfect,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, 191 (1966) 91. 56 Caird, “Just Men Made Perfect,” 92.

Perfection as Vocational/Experiential Qualification

23

obedience made perfect in the cross.57 In his study, Hebrews: A Call to Commitment, William Lane emphasizes this experiential theme when he speaks of the incarnation of the Son serving as a passageway that allows Christ to become acquainted with new dimensions of obedience.58 Similarly, F. F. Bruce highlights this experiential acquisition of obedience by arguing that only through suffering does Jesus learn the nature of human obedience.59 The point to appreciate in the scholarship of all these commentators is the way they relate the motif of perfection specifically to the category of Christ’s profound humanity. Du Plessis, while at times adhering to the applicability of the cultic model of perfection is also willing to see in Hebrews the viability of the experiential model, at least to some degree. With particular regard to Hebrews 5:9, Du Plessis argues for the “experiential acquisition of obedience” with respect to Christ.60 Du Plessis further develops upon this notion of Christ’s full participation in human experience by arguing for the complexive character of the aorist passive participle tekeiyhe¸r in Hebrews 5:9. According to this complexive reading, Christ’s perfection lay not in a single act of obedience, but comprises what Du Plessis terms as a complexive development, “comprising all experiences characteristic to human nature, of which suffering and distress are the most prominent.”61 In a recent and important study Albert Vanhoye has reinvigorated the experiential model in a way sensitive to the dominant Christological portrait of Christ in Hebrews as eternal High Priest. Vanhoye’s treatment takes full cognizance of the cultic symbols and language that permeate the larger theological vision of Hebrews. However, in contrast to his earlier views, Vanhoye does not relate the motif of Christ’s perfection to a model of cultic consecration. Instead, Vanhoye insists that the sacrificial character of Hebrews, as it appears so heavily, for example, in Hebrews 8 – 9, is amenable to an existential reading: Le language utilisé par l’auteur dans cette section (He 8:1 – 9:28) reste en grande partie cultuel, mais lorsu’il s’agit du Christ, ce n’est plus à des 57 Anthony Hoekma, “The Perfection of Christ in Hebrews,” Calvin Theological Journal, 9 (1974) 36 – 37. 58 Lane, Hebrews: A Call to Commitment, 82. See also August Konkel, “The Sacrifice of Obedience,” Didaskalia 2 (1991) 2 – 11. 59 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 131. 60 Du Plessis, TEKEIOS, 220. 61 Du Plessis, TEKEIOS, 221.

24

Chapter One

cérémonies rituelles qu’il s’applique. Il prend alors, au contraire, une forte densité existentielle, car il s’allie à des termes qui n’appartiennent aucunement au vocabulaire rituel, mais expriment les plus dures réalités de l’existence: la mort en He 9.15, la souffrance en He 9:26.62

According to Vanhoye, the existential understanding of perfection is seen above all in Hebrews’ conception of the authentically new Priesthood of Christ. Christ is the thoroughly unique Priest who has offered up his own life to God, and it was this act that made him perfect. According to Vanhoye, then, the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice lies precisely in the fact that the offering was a personal one: Christ did not sacrifice something external to himself; instead, Christ offered himself in a very personal way: A l’inverse des oblations d’animaux immolés, l’offrande du Christ a été pour lui un acte efficace de consécration sacerdotale, précisément parce qu’elle a été personnelle. Le Christ n’est pas allé chercher dans un troupeau une bête sans tare pour l’offrir à Dieu; ‘il s’offrit lui-même’ (He 9.14). Pour entrer dans le vrai sanctuaire, il n’a pas utilisé le ‘sang des boucs et des veaux’, mais ‘son propre sang.’63

We will return to this important insight concerning the personal character of Christ’s sacrifice in chapter five where we will explore the concept of Christ’s perfection as it relates to Hebrews’ portrait of Jesus as an eternal High Priest. For now I would only point to the interesting manner in which for the author of Hebrews the experiential model of perfection allows for an appreciation of the important beneficent dimension of Christ’s perfection.

62 Vanhoye, «La teleiôsis du Christ: point capital de la christologie sacerdotale d’Hébreux,» New Testament Studies 42 (1996), 332: «While the language used by the author in this section (Heb 8:1 – 9:28) remains in large part cultic, when it concerns Christ, ceremonial rituals are not applied to him. Then there emerges, on the contrary, a strong existential tone, since terms are employed which do not at all belong to the vocabulary of ritual, but express rather the harshest realities of existence: death in Hebrews 9:15, and suffering in Hebrews 9:26.» Translation my own. 63 Vanhoye, «La teleiôsis, 333: »As opposed to the offerings of animal sacrifices, Christ’s offering was made by him an effective act of priestly consecration precisely because it was personal. Christ did not seek from a flock an animal without defect to offer to God; he offered himself (Heb 9:14). In order to enter into the true sanctuary, he did not use the blood of goats and calves, but his own blood.« Translation my own.

CHAPTER TWO A New Proposal: The Material Application of Perfection as Definitive Attestation We have seen that the various scholarly proposals for what counts as a viable interpretation of the concept of Jesus’ perfection in Hebrews signal anything but a consensus on the issue. One is reminded here of Harold Attridge’s cautionary admonition that “Hebrews’ use of the language of perfection is complex and subtle and does not simply reproduce any of the various perfectionist ideals of the first century.”1 This caveat notwithstanding, in this chapter I will attempt to demonstrate the cogency of a new proposal that interprets Hebrews’ perfection terminology based on the technical usage of tekeioOm in the witness of the non-literary papyri. As a necessary preliminary to this task I must first explain my rationale for turning to this evidence. While many concede the relevance of such sources as the Septuagint for explicating the linguistic background of Hebrews the scholarly attempt to locate other literary candidates for explicating Hebrews’ usage of tekeioOm has frequently suffered from an overvaluation of Hellenic and Hellenistic sources. And when scholars do marshal the literary witness of the imperial period the evidence often concentrates on the writings of Philo or Josephus as noted in the examples from the previous chapter. Little attention is given to the task of recovering the way tekeioOm might have been employed in less self-consciously literary texts. For example, in the two major and best studies of the idea of perfection in the New Testament and in Hebrews: those of P.J. Du Plessis and David Peterson, there is ample and excellent consideration given to the summary of the usage of tekeioOm in various Hellenic and Hellenistic sources ranging from writers as far afield as Plato and Philo. However, no attention is given to the potentially important literary witness of the non-literary papyri for reconstructing how tekeioOm may be functioning in connection with Jesus.2 1 2

Attridge, Hebrews, 86. Du Plessis does mention the sense of legal execution which tekeioOm denotes in the non-literary papyri, but he does not pursue the possible relevance of this

26

Chapter Two

This is not to say that the literary sources that scholars have previously pointed to as fruitful indices for Hebrews’ usage of tekeioOm are insignificant for the interpretation of the concept of perfection in Hebrews. As witnesses to the trajectory of usages and applications of tekeioOm certain of these witnesses deserve a sympathetic hearing. However, if we hope to establish what the author of Hebrews could presume his audience to understand from the verb tekeioOm in the broadest possible sense, but search only high literary sources, we invariably narrow the field of evidence. If the audience for whom Hebrews was written represents a cross-section of persons rather than a strictly elite membership, then the interpretive net must be cast more widely in order to recover a fuller range of the ways in which the verb tekeioOm was employed. In order to arrive at this broader range of usage for the verb tekeioOm I shall illustrate below the technical usage of tekeioOm as it appears in representative selections from the non-literary papyri, in particular the papyrological evidence from Oxyrhynchus. I will then conclude this chapter with a preliminary reflection concerning the relevance of this papyrological evidence for the Christology of Hebrews and in this way set the stage for the exegetical sections of my argument in the chapters to follow. To be clear, it is not my intention to claim that the witness of the non-literary papyri holds the definitive key to the interpretation of the concept of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews. Instead, my proposal is that the fresh vantage point that emerges from an examination of the non-literary papyri yields a new material application of tekeioum that can be understood as definitive attestation. And it is this underderstanding of perfection as definitive attestation that offers a promising exegetical key for interpreting Hebrews’ portrait of Christ perfected.

The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri: Perfection as Definitive Attestation The following papyrus, which dates from approximately 50 C.E., deals with the repayment of a loan issued by two brothers, Demetrius and Isodorus, to an individual named Chaeremon. The papyrus demonstrates a usage of tekeioOm that we have not thus far seen: a material, application for the Christology of Hebrews. See P. J. Du Plessis, The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament, 69.

The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri

27

technical usage indicative of legal execution in the sense of public notarization: To…archidicastes and superintendent of the chrematistae and the other courts…We agree between ourselves as follows, whereas Demetrius and Isodorus have received from Chaeremon—through Chaeremon himself and through others, by the former drafts on the exchange-bank of Narcissus, son of Archias, and by the drafts on the exchange-bank of Demetrius and Isodorus themselves and by the present draft made by Chaeremon and executed tetekeiyl´mgm through the aforesaid exchangebank of Narcissus—the thirteen talents of silver which they lent to Chaeremon himself by a synchoresis through the archidicastes’ office in Pharmouthi of the eighth year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, together with the interests ( !qwidijast0 ja·]p. q¹r t/i 1[pile]ke¸ô t_m W[qgl ]tist_m ja· t_m %kkym jqitgq¸y m…su ]mwyqoOlem pq¹r !kk¶kour 1p· to?sde ¦ste 1pe· !pesw¶jasi f] te [Dg ] l¶tqior ja· b Ys¸dyqor paq± toO Waiq¶lomor ja· di’ aqto ]O Waiq¶lomor ja· di’ 2t´qym jat² te t±r pqot´qar diacqav±r t] /r Maqj¸ssou toO )qw¸ou jokkubistij/r tqap´fgr ja· t±r t/r a]qt_m Dmlgtq¸ou ja· Ysid¾qou tqap´fgr diacqav±r ja· jat± tµm mume· cecomu?am rp’ aqtoO [W] aiq¶lomor di± t/r pqocecqa ]l. l´mgr Maqj¸ssou jokkubisti jg)r tqap´fgr tetekeiyl´mgm ] diacqavµm $ 1d²meisam aqt_i W aiq¶lomi jat± sumw¾qgsim] di± toO jatakoce¸ou t` VaqloOhi toO acdºou 5tour Tibeq¸ ]ou Jkaud¸ou Ja¸saqor SebastoO CeqlamijoO Aqtojq²toqor !qc ]uq¸ou t²kamta d´ja tq¸a ja· to»r tºjour….) 3

As is typical of the vast majority of papyrological evidence to follow, we find this text employing tekeioOm in order to convey the idea of completion in the material sense of the notarization or execution of a legal document.4 As a preliminary to our discussion of this papyrus, the following selection of six papyri excerpts provide corroborative examples of this material, technical usage of tekeioOm. I have purposely chosen texts that range from the late first century to the late second 3 4

P.Oxy 27. 2471 in Oxyryhnchus Papyri. ed. & trans. E. G Turner, John Rea, L. Koenen, Jose M Fernandez Ponar; (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1962) 146 – 48. See James H. Moulton & George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Hodder and Stoughton, 1930) 629. See also Theodor Häring, “Über einige Grundgedanken des Hebräerbriefs,” in Monatschrift fur Pastoraltheologie 17 (1920), 266: “In den Papyrus (vgl. die genauen Register der Oxyrr. pap. London 1898) bedeutet tekeioOm sehr haufig ‘volziehen’ im juristischen Sinn…” For the customary representative usage of tekeioOm as “execution” see also PAmh 2.110; PAmh 2.111; PAmh 2.71; P.Oxy 27.2473; P.Oxy 42.3030; P.Oxy 42.3054; P.Oxy 3.510; P.Oxy I.68; PAmh II.CXII; Pamh 2.113; Papyrus Fouard I.57.

28

Chapter Two

century with a view to providing a representative sample of the consistency of this particular material application of tekeioOm. The first text dates from 70 – 79 C.E. and deals with a deed of divorce. Near the conclusion of the text reference is made to the conditions of the marriage as they were outlined in a contract, which was previously “executed” (tetekgyl´mgr) between the husband and wife in the setting of a public records office: The year of Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, Tybi 25th, at…in the division of…of the Arsinoite Nome. Didyme daughter of A’, aged about…, with a scar on her left calf (?), having with her as guardian her B son of B’, aged about forty-one, with a scar on his…knee; C son of C grandson of …x (?), aged about nineteen, with a scar on his…; D son of D, agedabout sixty-one, with a scar on his…knee; before E son of Kronion, these four acknowledge to each other: Didyme and C son of C (?) that they have dissolved their marriage with each other, the conditions of which were fixed by an alimentary contract executed tetekgyl´mgr through this same (?) record-office in the…year of Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus.5

The next papyrus, which also dates from approximately 79 C.E., deals with a receipt for rent. As in the previous papyrus example, we once more observe the mention of a contract or agreement “executed” (tetek. eiol´mgm) in the public setting of a record office: The eleventh year of Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, Mecheir 16th, at Tebtynis in the division of Polemon of the Arsinoite nome. Kronion the elder son of Ammis, aged about twenty-seven, with a scar on his right knee, acknowledges to Sigeris son of Sisouchos, aged about thritysix, with a scar on his forehead to the left, that he has (received) from him, Sigeris, forthwith from hand to hand out of the house froty drachmas of silver and three artabs of barley measured by the four-choinix measure of the granary of Tebtynis, which Sigeris owed Kronion in accordance with the agreement of inhabitation executed tetek. eiol´mgm through this same (?) record-office on the fifteenth day of Phaophi of the preceding tenth year of Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus (=tour 1mdej²tou Aqtojq²toqor Ja¸saqor HqespasiamoO Seb[as]toO, Lewe·q ir, 1m Teb (t¼mei) t/r Pok´lymor leq¸dor t. [oO )qsi ]mo¸to (u) m]oloO. blokoce? Jqom¸y [m pqe]sb¼teqor ) ]ll. ?tor ¢r 1[t]_m eUjosi [2p]t± oqkµi cºma]ti deni_i Sic¶qei t_i Siso¼wou ¢r 1t]_m tqi². [ jomt]a 4n oqkµ let¾po 1n !qis . (teq_m) !p´w]eim paq’ aq. [to]O Sic¶qior paqawq/la di± we. iq¹r 1n oUj[o]u !. qcuq¸ou [dqanl] ±r t]essaq². jomta ja· jqih/ [r !qt²ba]r tqe?r l]´tqyi tetqawoim¸jyi 5

Papyrus Fouad I. 34. ed. A. Bataille, O. Guéraud, P. Jouget, N. Lewis, H. Marrou, J. Scherer, and W. G. Waddell; Imprimerie de l’Institut francais D’Archéologie orientale (Le Caire, 1939) 83 – 85.

The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri

29

[hgsau]qoO Tebt¼me[yr] $r ¥veik]e. m e. m b Sic. [/qi]r. [t_i Jqom¸ym ]i jah’ blokoc¸am 1]moij¶seyr. tetek. eiol´mgm di± toO aqtoO c]q. av¸ou t_i diekgkuhºti dej²tyi 5tei A. q. [tojq]². toqor Ja¸saqor HqespasiamioO [Se ] bastoO….) 6

The following excerpt which dates from 112 C.E. concerns the repayment of a loan. Near the conclusion of the text we see a reference to the original execution tekeiyh´m of the loan that also took place in a records office: …Heraclous has received from Tasoucharion through the agency of the bank of Harpocration in the Treasuries quarter 1, 612 silver drachmae, which Tasoucharion owed her in virtue of a deed of loan executed tekeiyh´m through the same record-office and by a draft of Sarapion’s bank in the 11th year of Trajanus Caesar the lord… ([…!p´weim tµm JqajkoOm paq± t/r Tasouwaq¸ou di± t/r *qpowqat¸ymor tqap´fgr Tale¸ym !qcuq¸ou dqawl±r weik¸ar 1najos¸ar dej²duo $r ¥veikem aqt0 B Tasouw²qiom jat± d²meiom tekeiy ]h³m di± toO aqt[o O cqave¸ou ja· diecbokµm t/r Saqap¸ymor tqap´f[gr] [t` dej]²t\ pq¾ [t]y . 5tei Tqaiam. oO Ja¸saqor toO juq¸ou …) 7

The following three papyri excerpts, all from the provenance of Oxyrhynchus, provide further corroboration of this material usage of tekeioOm as legal execution. The excerpts date from 108 C.E., 131 C.E., and 186 C.E., respectively. In the first example a public official of some kind expresses his desire to another public official that a memorandum be supplied to the public recorders requiring them to “execute” a contract in accordance with the proper procedures: …I give this memorandum so that you might command the agoranomaiof the capital city who are the recorders to execute tekei_sai the contract in the proper way (1pid¸d[o] li [t]¹ rpºm [g]la fpyr s. ». 1pis[te¸k,r to?r t/r lgtqopºkeyr !coqamºlo [ir owsi ja· lm¶losi tekei_sai t¹m wqgla[tisl¹m ¢r jah¶jei).8

This next example refers to an official memorandum that has not been “executed” (1teke¸ysem) properly by the person who has lodged the legal complaint: 6 7 8

Papyrus Fouad I. 56, 135 – 36. PRyl II. 174, Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library Volume II, Documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, ed. J. De M. Johnson, Victor Martin, Arhtur S. Hunt (Manchester: University press, 1915) 210 – 11. P.Oxy 3.483. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell & Arthur S. Hunt; London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903). Translation my own.

30

Chapter Two

…From the city of Oxyryhnchus. Since Theon son of Pausiris, from the same city of Oxyryhnchus gave me, through the strategus of the nome a copy of a memorandum which he did not poperly execute 1teke¸ysem in the record office ([ ! ]p. ¹. t[./r O]n[u]q¼cw[ym pºkeyr. 1pe· [let´d]yj´ loi H´ym Pause¸qi[or t_m !p¹ [t/r a]qt/r’ [[p ]] Onuq¼cwym pºkeyr di± toO [toO mol [oO ] stqatgcoO !mt¸cqavom ox o. q [deºmtyr 1teke¸ysem t` jatakoce¸\ rpo]lm¶lator…) 9

And in this final example an official prohibits the contract recorders from executing a document apart from the confirmation of the official records treasury: …And I instruct the makers of contracts as well as the recorders to execute tekei_sai nothing at all without a commission from the record’s treasury… (…paqacc´kky d³ ja· to?r sumakkaclatocq²voir ja· to?r lm¶losi lgd³m d¸wa 1pist²klator toO bibkiovukaj¸ou tekei_sai …) 10

With such examples contextualizing this material usage of tekeioOm as indicative of legal execution we may now return to our analysis of P.Oxy 27.2471 in order to amplify our findings. In this particular papyrus we read that Chaeremon’s final payment whereby he discharges his debt is accomplished or completed in the specific material, technical sense of an “execution of a formal payment” (tetekeiyl´mgm] diacqav¶m).11 Moreover, when we examine this usage of tekeioOm in light of its surrounding context the discrete elements of the papyrus evince a decidedly public and official tone. For example, it is significant to note to whom the correspondence is addressed: specifically, to a public official and more generally to the courts: “To the Archidicastes and to the attendant of the Chrematistae and the other courts.” ( !qwidijast0 ja· ] p. q¹r t/i e[pile]ke¸a. t_m w[qgl]atist_m ja· t_m %kkym jqitgq¸y]m).12 We are also told that the original contract of loan was placed in the record office of Pharmouthi as a kind of public official depository: di± toO jatakoce¸ou t` vaqloOhi.13 Moreover, the bank in which Chaeremon filled out the final check is described with a term emphasizing its public character: “…The bank of Narcissus publicly 9 P.Oxy I. 68. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell & Arthur S. Hunt; (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898) 127. Translation my own. 10 P.Oxy 2.237. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell & Arthur S. Hunt; (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898) 163 – 64. Translation my own. 11 Line 14, P.Oxy 27.2471 12 Line 1, P.Oxy 27.2471 13 Line 15, P.Ox 27.2471

The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri

31

described above” (di± t/r pqocecqa]l. l´mgr Maqj¸ssou jokkubisti [ j/]r tqap´fgr).14 By themselves, such details may not appear to be of much significance, but when taken together they suggest an “execution” of a payment that is not only formal and official, but especially public and definitive: a) the courts are called upon to be witnesses to this transaction; b) Demetrius and Isodorus publicly avow to the courts and officials that Chaeremon has in fact paid them back the loan; and c) Chaeremon’s final payment is executed in the public sphere of a bank. These elements all serve to make something clear and demonstrative in a highly public and official sense: namely, the fact that Chaeremon has in fact paid back his loan. When these official and public elements are taken into consideration the familiar material notion of perfection in the papyri as “execution” opens onto a more nuanced material notion of perfection as definitive public displayal, or what I would like to characterize henceforth as official and definitive attestation. The next set of seven papyri, all of which all date from the first century C.E., serve further to underscore this material, technical sense of perfection as official, public, and definitive attestation. The excerpts will follow in chronological order. Transfer of a Debt (56 C.E.). In this text an Athenian woman named Heraclea officially agrees to transfer the rights of recovery of a loan to a citizen of Oxyrhynchus by the name of Papontos. Heraclea makes a point of specifying that the original loan contract in her name was “executed” (tekeiyhe?sam) in a record office: Copy. In the second year of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus imperator, as brought forward publicly in the third month of Caesar in the city of Oxyrhynchus in the territory of Thebes, Heraclea, daughter of Heracleides, a citizen of the Athenian deme with her Lord, Nicippus, Son of Nicippus, grants to Papontos )v¼cwior, son of Zuilos of the city of Oxyrhynchus the rights of exaction and recovery of money in the amount of 200 drachma under the currency of August Ptolemy; (a right) which Heraclea herself obtained in accordance with a loan contract executed tekeiyhe?sam through the record book of the records office in the second month of the present second year of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator ()mt¸cqa (vom). 5tour deut´qou M´qymor Jka[ud¸ou J]a¸saqor SebastoO Ceql[amij ]oO Aqtojq²toqor, lgm¹r Jaisaqe¸ou 1paco (l´mym) c, 1m inuq¼cw(ym) p[ºkei]t/r Hgba¸dor. b[loko]ce? Jq²jkeia Jqajke¸dou !stµ let± [ juq¸o]u toO Mij¸ppou toO M[i]j¸ppou )kha¸eyr Papomt_ti )v¼cwior toO j[a·]Fy¸kou t_m !p’ inuq¼cwym pºkeyr 1m 14 Line 13, P.Ox 27.2471

32

Chapter Two

!cuiø paqajewyqgj´mai aqt` pq[÷]nim ja· jolidµm !qcuq¸ou SebastoO ja· P[toke]laijoO mol¸sla [t]or dqawl_m [di ]ajos¸ym, ¨m ja· aqtµ Jq²jkeia tucw [²me]i paqajewyqgl´mg jat± [sum ]w¾qgsim tµm tekeiyhe?sam di± t/r [1 ]vgleq¸dor toO jatakoce¸ou t[` Ja]isaqe¸\ lgm· toO 1mest_tor [[ deu]] d[e ]u[t]´qo [u ] 5tour M´qymor Jkaud¸ou Ja¸saqor Sebas]toO CeqlamijoO Aq[to]jq²toqor).15

Repayment of a Dowry (58 C.E.). In this text, which is addressed to the public courts, a mother and daughter express their mutual agreement over the terms of dowry payment as detailed in a settlement “completed” in the sense of legally executed at an earlier date in an official registry of some sort: Copy. To Theon chief justice and superintendent of the chrematistae and the other courts, from Ammonarion, daughter of Ammonius, son of Dionysius, and however else she is described at Ptolemais Hermiu, and from her daughter Ophelous…We agree with each other as follows: –Ammonarion and Ophelous have given their consent and have received from Antiphanes from hand to hand in cash the sum which they severally consented to accept…in accordance with a settlement completed tekeiyhe?sam some time ago through the daybook ()mt¸cqavom. H´ymi !qwidija[st]/i ja· pq¹r t0 1pileke[¸]ô t[_]m wqg[la]tist_m ja· t_m %kkym jqitgq¸ym paq± )llymaq¸[o]u t/r)lly[m¸]ou toO Diomus¸ou, ¢r 1m [Pto] kela¸di t/r :ql¸ou wqglat¸[f]ei, a[q]t/r ja· t/r ta¼tgr [h]u. [c]atq¹r ©ve[koOt]or…sumwyqoOlem [pq¹r !kk¶ko]ur 1p· to?sde, ¦ste eWmai B [)llym²qio]m [ ja·] B ©veko»r eqpihe?r cecomu?ai ja· !peswgju?ai [paq± toO )mt ]iv²mour di± weiq¹r [1]n oUjou d ja· 1pe[¸shg]sam jev²kaiom…su ]mw¾qgsim tµm tekeiyhe?sam di± t/r 1vgleq¸dor 1m to?r 5lp[qo]shem wqºmoir).16

Receipt for Settlement of Rent (70 C.E). This following papyrus is an important one since it presents a usage of tekeioOm by a soldier, i. e., a specific instance of an ordinary member of society and not part of the learned elite. As observed in the examples above, the language of perfection once more appears within the larger context of a public setting in which the theme of official attestation is patent. The latter becomes clear in the soldier’s insistence that the document in question—a rent receipt—has been scrutinized by the local “registry” prior to its dispatch to the proper authorities: The third year of the Emperor Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, in the month Sebastus, in the city of Oxyrhynchus in the Thebaid. Agreement between Caius Julius Satornilus, soldier of the twenty-second legion, of the century 15 P.Oxy 2.271, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 255. Translation my own. 16 P.Oxy 2.268, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 248.

The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri

33

of Bius Severus, aged twenty-eight, of middle height, olive-complexioned, long-faced, straightnosed, with a scar on the middle of the nose, being on active service and acting through Dionysis also known as Theopompos, the representative appointed by him in accordance with this deed completed tekei¾lemom and dispatched after scrutiny by the Registry to the local authorities, dated on the third day of the month Caesareius in the second year of the Emperor Caesar Vespasianus Augustus (=tour tq¸tou Aqtojq²toqor Ja¸saqor HqespasiamoO SebastoO 1minuq¼cwym pºkei t/r Hgba¸dor.jlokoce? C²ior Yo¼kior Satoqme?kor stqati¾tgr kece_mor deut´qar ja· eQjost/r jemt´qar B¸ou Seou¶qou ¢rg (1t_m) eQjºsi ajt½ l´sor lek¸wqor lajqopqºsypor eqh¼qim oqkµ Nim· l´s, £m t0 stqate¸ô di± toO sumestal´mou rp’ aqtoO jat± tºmde tekei¾lemom ja· !mapepell´mom 1p· to»r [tºpou]tºpour 1j toO jatakoce¸ou !p¹ diakoc/r wqglatisl¹m ox wq´ omor 5tour deut´qou Aqtojq²toqor Ja¸saqor HqespasiamoO SebastoO lgm¹r Jaisaqe¸ou tq¸t,…) 17

Claim of a Creditor (82 C.E.). Below is a straightforward contract of loan illustrating the technical sense of tekeioOm as completion tekeiyhe?sam in the sense of legal execution: …Heron agreed that Zenarion would repay after five years to his mother Philumene, daughter of Heron, the 2000 drachmae of silver which Philumene lent me and my mother Thaesis by a contract completed tekeiyhe?sam through the record office at Oxyrhynchus in Pharmuthi of the ninth year of the deified Vespasian (dapamgsasa. tou ei.o. u. ¢lokºcgjem tµm Fgm²qiom !pod¾seim let’ 5tg pe´[m]t. e t0 toO Nqymor lgtq· [v]ikoul´m, Nqymo[r $r 1d]²[meise]m. B vikoul´mg 1lo¸ te ja· t0 lgtq¸ lou h[a¶si] j. a. t-. ±. sumcqa. v. µm tek]e. iyh. [e? ]s. a. m. di± toO 1m t0 Onuq¼cwy[m pº]kei lmglom¸ou t` 1m²t\ 5tei heoO OqespasiamoO vaq[l]oOhi…) 18

Notification of Cession (83 – 4 C.E.). In this text the ceding of property is in view. Once again the stock reference to a contract executed tek]e. iyh. [e? ]s. a. m. in a record office serves as a legal confirmation of the cession. To Tarutillius, superintendent of the distribution of lands, through his agent Plutarchus, from Demetrius son of Callias, inhabitant of the village of Sinaru in the lower toparchy. I have had ceded to me together with other property subject to the 1cj¼jkiom tax, by a contract executed tekeiyhe?sam record office of Nois and other villages in the territory of the Alexandrians in the month of Pauni of the past second year of the Emperor Caesar Domitianus Augustus Taqoutikk¸\ t` pq¹r to? (r. ) j(atako)w (islo?r) di± Pkout²qw (ou) weiqist. oO paq± Dglg[tq]¸ou toO Jakk¸ou t_m !p¹ j¾lgr 17 P.Oxy 22.2349; Oxyrhynchus Papyri. ed. & trans. E. Lobel & C.H. Roberts; (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1954) 142 – 46. 18 P.Oxy 2.286, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 277 – 78.

34

Chapter Two

Simaq» t/r j²ty topaqw¸ar. paqajew¾qglai s»m 2t´qoir rp²qwousi rpope¸pto(usim) 1mjujk¸\ jah’ blokoc¸am tµm tekeiyhe?sam di± toO t/r M¾seyr ja· %kkym jyl_m [t/]r )kenamdq´ym w¾qar cqav¸ou t` PaOmi lgm· toO diekhºmtor deut´qou 5tour Aqtojq²t. o. qor Ja¸s[a]qor DolitiamoO Seb[a (stoO)…) 19

Loan of Money (90 C.E.): In the following text a woman by the name of Taeuemeros promises to pay a soldier a certain amount of money owed to the soldier’s mother in fulfillment of a loan contract “drawn up” in the sense of executed at an earlier date: The tenth year of the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus, the 30th of the month of Neos Sebastos, in Ptolemais Euergetis in the Arsinoite nome. Taeuemeros, daughter of Marcus, about 55 years old with a scar on her right thumb, with her guardian, her son Sarapion, son of… about 25 years old with a scar in the middle of his forehead beneath the hair, acknowledges to Marcus Anthestius Gemellus, soldier of the third Ituraean cohort of the century of Titius, about 35 years old with a scar on the left side of his chin, that she will perforce repay to Marcus Anthestius Gemellus within the…days, which she has asked him for (?) as indulgence on the loan…the…silver drachmas owed to the mother (?) of Anthestius,…daughter of…while she was still living, by Herakleides, son of Horion, in accordance with a contract of…drawn up tekeiyhe?sam through the grapheion of the village of Karanis…in the sixth year of Domitian in the month of Pharmouthi (… 1jdºsi]lom. [5tour dej²tou Aqtojq²toqor Ja¸saqor DolitiamoO SebastoO CeqlamijoO lgmor M´ou SebastoO k – 1m Ptokela¸di ]Eqeqc´tidi toO )qsimo¸tou mºlou. blokoce[ ? ] Taeu¶leqor L²qjou ¢r (1t_m) me o(qkµ) ! ]mt¸w (eiqi) deni_i let± juq¸ou toO uRoO Sa[q]ap¸ym [or] toO…. ymor ¢r (1t_m) je o (qkµ) let¾pyi l]´syi rp¹ tq¸wa. [L ]². [q] jyi )mvest¸y. Cel´kk\ stqati¾t, spe¸qgr tq¸tgr Ytouqa¸ym 2jat]omtaqw¸ar Tit¸ou (¢r 1t_m) ke o (qkg) ceme¸yi 1n !qisteq_m 1p²macjom tµm blokoc]oOsam Taeu¶leqom !pod¾sim t_i L²qj\ )mhest¸\ Cel´kk\ 1m aXr ]sam aqt¹m eQr sumpeqivoq±m t/[r] !podºseyr Bl´qair t/r pqojil´mgr t±r avikol´mar t0 to [O ] )mhest¸ou lgtq· ati.o. r 5ti peqio¼s, rp¹ Jqajke¸dou toO ªq¸ymor jah’ blokoc¸am t]µm di± j¾lgm Jaqam¸di cqave¸ou tekeiyhe. .?sam t_i 6jtyi 5tei Do]litiamoO lgm· VaqloOhi !qcuq¸ou dqawl [²r]…) 20

Declarations by Ephebi (99 C.E.). This very interesting papyrus from the close of the first century documents the official declarations of two ephebi, Demetrius and Heliodorus, who solemnly declare that their status as ephebi is corroborated by a court issued document in their 19 P.Oxy 12.1462, Oxyryhnchus Papyri, Part 12, ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell & Arthur S. Hunt; (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1916) 185 – 86. 20 PMich 9.568 – 569; Papyri from Karanis, Third Series (Michigan Papyri, vol. 9. ed. Elinor M. Husselman; (Case Western Reserve University, 1971) 116 – 18.

The Techinical Usage of tekeioOm in the Non-Literary Papyri

35

possession which proves their status: tetekeioj´mai d³ t¹m !p¹ b¶lator wqglatisl¹m ja 5weim t¹ letadºsiam. Significantly, the language of perfection functions precisely to provide official proof or attestation of social status. We, Demetrius and Heliodorus sons of Apollonius son of Achilleus, members of the Propapposebastian tribe and Philometorian deme, who were enrolled in the second year of Domitian as ephebi in the 133rd symmory under the presidency of Dionysius, do swear by the emperor Caesar Trajanus Augustus Germanicus that we were enrolled in the aforesaid 2nd year as ephebi in the aforesaid symmory, and that we have not availed ourselves of another person’s payment (?) or identity of name, and that we have completed tetekeioj´mai the deed issued by the court and have the certificate (Dgl¶tqior ja· Jkiºdyqor )pokkym¸ou toO )wikk´yr Pqopapposeb²steioi oR ja· Vikolgt´qeioi t_m [t¹ ] de¼teqom 5tor [D]olitiamoO 1vgbeujºtym sumloq¸ar 1jatostotqiajostotq¸tgr sumloqi²qwou Diomus¸ou alm¼y )u [[tojqato]] tojq²toqa Ja¸saqa Tqaiam¹m Sebast¹m Ceqlamij [¹]m 1vgbeuj´mai t¹ pqoj¸lemom 5tor b, e[Wmai t/r pqojil´mgr sumloq¸ar ja· lµ !kkotq¸ô !paqw0 lgd³ blomul¸ô jewq/stai, tetekioj´mai d³ t¹m !p¹ b¶la. tor wqglatisl¹m ja· 5weim t¹ letadºsilom…) 21

Taken together, the foregoing excerpts clearly reinforce the material usage of tekeioOm as legal execution and official attestation. Throughout we see variations of the idea of official and, at times, even legal disclosure, as when the ephebi declare that they possess the necessary certificate as notarized in the courts; a certificate which discloses in a definitive fashion the fact of their previous enrollment in the class of the ephebi. As we have already noted such official disclosure functions to make something definitive and manifestly clear, especially in a legal sense. To that end, in almost every instance from the papyri we have listed above we observe near the conclusion of the text some variant of the phrase “in accordance with a contract executed in the records’ office.” In the order of their occurrence these phrases are: ( jah’ 2t´qam sumw¾qgsim tµm tekeiyhe?sam di± t/r 1vgleq¸dor toO jatakoce¸ou …) (P.Oxy 2., lines 11 – 12). “…in accordance with a loan contract executed …tekeiyhe?sam through the record book of the records office…”

21 Ptebt. 2.316. Tebtunis Papyri, Part 2, ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, & J. Gilbart Smyly; (London: Henry Frowde, 1902) 116 – 20.

36

Chapter Two

( jat± sumw¾qgsim tµm tekeiyhe?sam di± t/r 1vgleq¸dor) (P.Oxy 2.248, lines 10 – 11) “…in accordance with an agreement executed tekeiyhe?sam through the record book…” ( jat± tºmde tekei¾lemom ja· !mapepell´mom 1p· to»r (tºpou) tºpour 1j toO jatakoce¸ou !p¹ diakoc/r) (P.Oxy 22:2349, lines 3 – 4) “…in accordance with the deed completed tekei¾lemom and dispatched after scrutiny by the registry to the local authorities…” ( jat± sumcqavµm tekeiyhe?sam di± toO 1m t0 inuq¼cwym pºkei) (P.Oxy 2.286, lines 5 – 6) “…in accordance with a contract executed tekeiyhe?sam in the city of Oxyryhnchus; ( jah’ blokoc¸am tµm tekeiyhe?sam di± toO t/r M¾eyr) (P. Oxy 12.1462, lines 31 – 32) “…in accordance with a contract executed tekeiyhe?sam in the city of Nois; ( jah’ blokoc¸am tµm di± j¾lgm Jaqam¸di cqave¸ou tekeiyhe?sam) (P.Mich 9.568 – 69, lines 12 – 13) “…in accordance with a contract drawn up tekeiyhe?sam through the grapheion of the village of Karanis.”

The papyrus concerning the declarations of the ephebi presents a somewhat different reading, but the sense of official attestation still remains: (tetekioj´mai d³ t¹m !po b¶lôtor wqglatisl¹m ja· 5weim t¹ letadºsilom) (P.Tebt 2.316, lines 10 – 12) “we have completed tetekioj´mai the deed issued by the court and have the certificate.”

In all of these examples the terminology of perfection functions essentially as a confirmation of the business or legal matter at hand. Indeed, the many stock references in the papyri to a completed contract in the sense of “executed” serve effectively to put an end to discussion by revealing the self-evidence of a contract “executed,” notarized, and attested in a public setting. I bring forward this last example of a papyrus that dates from around 94 C.E. as a final illustration of the connection between tekeioOm and the idea of definitive public attestation. The papyrus concerns the registration of a slave by a husband and wife before a public official. This text is significant for two reasons. First, it witnesses to a notion of “perfection” applied directly to a person tetekei_shai, namely, perfection in the sense of formal registration of a slave. Apart from Luke, Hebrews is the only New Testament text to apply perfection terminology to Jesus. Second, the public character of the act of registration emerges precisely at that point in the transaction where the wife claims public recognition of her ownership of the slave in the use of the verb 1d¶kou (“to make clear, manifest”) in conjunction with tetekei_shai and tetekeiyl´mgm

Perfection as Definitive Attestation in Relation to the Christology of Hebrews

37

which signals her intent for public recognition of her publicly registered slave: …And accordingly it was made manifest 1d¶kou that the slave had been registered tetekei_shai for her under the same slaves by means of an agreement executed tetekeiyl´mgm through the record office (…!joko¼hyr Ø 1d¶kou tetekei_shai eQr aqtµm [r]p³q t_m [aq]t_m s. y . l. a. t. y. m. blokoc¸ô tetekeiyl´mgm di± toO jatakoce¸ou…) 22

Despite the evidence this papyrus yields for the application of tekeioOm to a person, it might be argued that there exists a certain implausibility in the claim that the author of Hebrews would apply a technical term typically reserved for legal or business transactions to the person of Christ, i. e., the verb tekeioOm in the sense of to execute or notarize a document. Admittedly, if we were to take tekeioOm in the strict material sense of official notarization or execution this argument would be apposite. However, as I have attempted to demonstrate in my delineation of these papyri, it is crucial to contexualize the verb tekeioOm against the background in which it occurs. After examining the context that surrounds the use of this term as it occurs in the papyri, we have seen that the material sense of perfection as “execution”, both with respect to transactions and with respect to the registration of a person, suggests a deeper sense of official attestation, a sense which I would argue transcends the bare meaning of execution. These papyri show in their use of the verb tekeioOm that something is now displayed for all to see in a definitive and public sense. If indeed the author of Hebrews has adapted a material notion of perfection as official and definitive public attestation, then we need to ask the question: In what way do we see this material definition of perfection as public attestation visible both in terms of the Christology of Hebrews and in terms of the larger theological vision of the epistle as a whole?

Perfection as Definitive Attestation in Relation to the Christology of Hebrews Our examination of the usage of tekeioOm in the non-literary papyri confirms the technical idea of official attestation in a public sphere in relation both to business and personal transactions. Below is a selection 22 P. Oxy 1.63, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 136. Translation my own.

38

Chapter Two

of passages from Hebrews which reveals a context similar to that found in the non-literary papyri: a context in which the concept of comprehensive or definitive public attestation is a salient feature. The exordium of Hebrews commences with the assertion that God has now spoken in a definitive way in the person of the Son, clarifying all previous dispensations of divine speech. (Heb 1:1 – 2): Although God spoke long ago in many fragmentary and in many various ways to the fathers through the prophets, in the last of these days He has spoken to us in a Son, whom he has established as an heir of all things, through whom he has also created the world (Pokuleq_r ja· pokutqºpyr p²kai b he¹r kak¶sar to?r patq²sim 1m to?r pqov¶tair 1p’ 1sw²tou t_m Bleq_m to¼tym 1k²kgsem Bl?m 1m uR`, dm 5hgjem jkgqomºlom p²mtym, di’ ox ja· 1po¸gsem to»r aQ_mar).

Attridge observes that these opening verses serve to emphasize the “singularity and finality of God’s eschatological speech in the Son” indeed the use of the adverb, pokuleq_r, suggests that God’s providential speech of the past had a “disjointed” as well as a multiple quality pokutqºpyr.23 What was uttered in the past was authentic speech, revelatory of God’s will. However, God’s speech has now been confirmed and clarified in a more definitive fashion in the person of the Son 1p’ 1sw²tou t_m Bleq_m to¼tym 1k²kgsem Bl?m 1m uR` (Heb 1:2). Near the conclusion of the exordium we find essentially the same theme of definitive attestation in the assertion that the salvation brought by Christ surpasses the law that was given by angels on Sinai (Heb 2:1 – 3): For this reason we must all the more devote ourselves to those things which have been heard, so that we do not fall away. For if the word which was spoken through angels was secure and every transgression and disobedience received its just penalty, then how shall we escape if we come to neglect so great a salvation, which was first spoken through the Lord and was confirmed for us by those who heard? (Di± toOto de? peqissot´qyr pqos´weim Bl÷r to?r !joushe?sim, l¶pote paqaqu_lem. eQ c±q b di’ !cc´kym kakghe·r kºcor 1c´meto b´baior ja· p÷sa paq²basir ja· paqajoµ 5kabem 5mdijom lishapodos¸am, p_r Ble?r 1jveunºleha tgkija¼tgr !lek¶samter sytgq¸ar, Ftir !qwµm kaboOsa kake?shai di± toO juq¸ou rp¹ t_m !jous²mtym eQr Bl÷r 1bebai¾hg)

The verb bebaiºy along with its cognates b´baior and beba¸ysir altogether occur seven times in Hebrews: 1bebai¾hg (Heb 2:3); bebaioOshai (Heb 13:9); b´baior (Heb 2:2); beba¸am (Heb 3:14); 23 Attridge, Hebrews, 37

Perfection as Definitive Attestation in Relation to the Christology of Hebrews

39

beba¸am (Heb 6:19); beba¸a (Heb 9:17); and beba¸ysim (Heb 6:16). The verb means to confirm, establish, guarantee. On the one hand, the “word” (kºcor) which was given by the angels was “secure,” (b´baior). On the other hand, the salvation bestowed by Christ is not only great, but also “confirmed” or “established” (1bebai¾hg) by those who heard. The idea seems to be that just as God speaks more definitively in the Son, so, too, the salvation brought by the Son is more definitive than past salvific dispensations. Moreover, the point of the contrast above functions largely to express the manifest and self-evident status of the claim for the superiority of the salvation brought by Christ: “For if the word which was spoken through angels was secure…then how shall we escape if we come to neglect so great a salvation?” (Heb 2:2 – 3a). In a similar fashion, P.Oxy 27.2471 makes clear in a definitive and public fashion the history and final consummation of the business transaction between Chaeremon and the brothers, Demetrius and Isodorus. One of the best papyrus examples illustrating the material concept of perfection as definitive attestation comes from a late first century papyrus concerning the validation of documents deposited in various official record offices. The papyrus is interesting since it appears to work with an understanding of tekeioOm which goes beyond the idea of simple execution, i. e., notarization and leans more to this idea of official definitive public attestation. The papyrus dates from 72 CE. Those who have outstanding agreements in the !coqomol¸yi ja· lmglome¸yi ja· cqav¸yi in the fourth year of the revered Caesar Vespasian are to come to the !coqomºloir and execute/complete tekeioOm them (To»r 5womtar lete¾qour oQjomol¸ar 5m te t_i !coqamol¸yi ja· lmglome¸yi ja· cqav¸yi 1m t_i diekgkuhºti tet²qtyi 5tei Aqtojq²toqor Ja¸saqor HqespasiamoO SebastoO pqos´qweshai to?r !coqamºloir ja· tekeioOm…) 24

The passage is noteworthy first of all since it reveals that there were perhaps as many as three separate records or “notarial” offices in Oxyrhynchus for the purposes of executing and depositing documents such as business agreements, contracts, etc.25 Aside from this historical detail, the passage is suggestive for its employment of tekeioOm. As the editors of Oxyrhynchus admit, the application of the adjective lete¾qour above is far from clear in its application to legal documents 24 P.Oxy 2.238. Oxyrhynchus Papyri , Part 2, ed. & trans. P. Grenfell & Arthur S. Hunt (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1899) 181. Translation my own. 25 A point made in the commentary on P. Oxy 2.238. See Oxyrhynchus Papyri , vol. 2, 181.

40

Chapter Two

such as contracts, etc. The basic sense of this adjective conveys the idea of raising something above the ground. By extension, the metaphorical sense of the adjective conveys the idea of uncertainty. As such, lete¾qour may be suggestive here of the idea that these documents were registered in a provisional sense and now must be registered in a more formal, complete and definitive sense as if to make them valid.26 Hence, in the case of this papyrus, tekeioOm appears to go beyond the sense of “execute” to include a much broader idea of definitive completion. The contrast between provisional and complete is a recurring theme in Hebrews, especially in terms of Hebrews’ high priestly Christology. Central to this contrast is the claim that Christ as High Priest offers in his sacrifice not another victim but his own person, a personal offering which the levitical priests did not do. It is this personal sacrifice which accounts for both the more perfect Priesthood of Christ and the specific failure of the institution of the levitical priesthood.27 In other words, in Christ the perfect High Priest, a definitive, complete sacrifice has been made. More specifically, what has been displayed definitively is the personal quality of Christ’s salvific activity, a personal quality that the levitical priesthood lacked (Heb 9:24 – 26): For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by human hands, a type of the true one, but into heaven itself now to appear before the face of God on our behalf. Nor does he offer himself many times, as does the high priest who enters into the sanctuary yearly with blood that is not his own, since then he would have to suffer many times from the foundation of the world. But as it is now he has appeared once and for all at the close of the age to remove sin through the sacrifice of himself (oq c±q e·r weiqopo¸gta eQs/khem ûcia Wqistºr, !mt¸tupa t_m !kghim_m, !kk’ eQr aqt¹m t¹m oqqamºm, mOm 1lvamish/mai t` pqos¾p\ toO heoO rp³q Bl_m7 oqd’ Vma pokk²jir pqosv´q, 2autºm, ¦speq b !qwieqe»r eQs´qwetai eQr t± ûcia jat’ 1miaut¹m 1m aVlati !kkotq¸\, 1pe· 5dei aqt¹m pokk²jir pahe?m !p¹ jatabok/r jºslou7 mum· d³ ûpan 1p· sumteke¸ô t_m aQ¾mym eQr !h´tgsim t/r "laqt¸ar di± t/r hus¸ar aqtoO pevam´qytai).

In the excerpts from both the papyri and Hebrews we have seen that a central function of the text is to make something clear and demonstrative in a definitive sense. In the case of the papyri, what we see demonstrated is the definitive or final conclusion to a loan transaction and the status of legal documents, respectively. In the case of Hebrews, the passages are illustrative of two fundamental theological 26 See Oxyryhnchus Papyri, vol. 2. pp.180 – 81. 27 Vanhoye, ‘la ’teleiôsis,’ 333.

Perfection as Definitive Attestation in Relation to the Christology of Hebrews

41

emphases of the epistle: (1) The surpassing quality of the salvation brought by Christ (Heb 1:1 – 2 & 2:1 – 3) and (2) Christ’s role as the perfect High Priest in relation to the priests of old (Heb 9:24 – 26). I should be clear at this juncture that I do not mean to suggest by such a comparison that the author of Hebrews has simply adopted a technical usage of perfection as definitive attestation without transforming this technical usage in the process. The papyrological excerpts we have marshaled as evidence thus far deal primarily with matters of pragmatic and legal import. By contrast, the essential characteristic of Hebrews, as I see it, is one of a deeply theological text, celebrative of the salvation brought by Christ. Not to read Hebrews’ usage of tekeioOm in light of such theological commitments would be to misread the letter. Nevertheless, I would argue that the fundamental material sense in which tekeioOm is employed both in Hebrews and in the papyri we have examined is similar. In both cases there exists an abiding concern to display or reveal something in a very clear, definitive, official and public sense. The difference between Hebrews and the papyri relates to content. In the papyri, tekeioOm functions to reveal essentially a legal content; in Hebrews the application of tekeioOm to Christ functions to reveal a theological content concerning the person of Christ. If we return now to Hebrews in order to see how this material sense of perfection as definitive attestation ties more directly into Hebrews’ vision of Christ, the highly legal imagery of Hebrews six and seven is important to consider. In these chapters, the author attempts to link the definitive Priesthood of Christ with the idea of God’s official oath, which both secures and confirms the surpassing efficacy of Christ’s more perfect Priesthood. It is principally in the idea of the divine oath that the material sense of perfection as definitive attestation and disclosure is most clearly revealed. Chapters six and seven deal principally with the explication of two themes that are integral to the Christology of Hebrews: the theme of the High Priesthood of Christ first introduced in Hebrews 4:14 on the one hand, and the role of the mysterious figure of Melchizedek ( Heb 6:20) in connection with the unique Priesthood of Christ on the other. Before dealing with these themes, however, Hebrews reflects first on the promise that God had given to Abraham; and it is here where the idea of the divine oath sets the stage for the Christological development of Christ’s Priesthood in chapter seven. (Heb 6:13 – 18)

42

Chapter Two

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no-one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying: In blessing you I shall certainly bless you; and in multiplying you I shall certainly multiply you. And since he (Abraham) showed patience, he obtained the promise. Now men swear by someone greater, and every dispute among them has for its final confirmation an oath. Now when God desired to demonstrate even more fully to the heirs of the promise the unchangeability of his will he guaranteed it by means of an oath, so that by virtue of two unchangeable deeds by means of which it is impossible for God to lie, we might possess strong encouragement, we who have fled to take hold of the hope which lies before us (t` c±q )bqa±l 1pacceik²lemor b he¹r, 1pe· jat’ oqdem¹r eWwem le¸fomor alºsai, ¥losem jah’ 2autoO k´cym eQ lµm eqkoc_m eqkoc¶sy se ja· pkgh¼mym pkghum_ se7 ja· ovtyr lajqohul¶sar 1p´tuwem t/r 1paccek¸ar. %mhpypoi c±q jat± toO le¸fomor alm¼ousim, ja· p²sgr aqto?r !mtikoc¸ar p´qar eQr beba¸ysim b fqjor7 1m è peqissºteqom boukºloemor b He¹r 1pide?nai to?r jkgqomºloir t/r 1paccek¸ar t¹ !let²hetom t/r bouk/r aqtoO 1les¸teusem fqj\, Vma di± d¼o pqacl²tym !letah´tym, 1m oXr !d¼matom xe¼sashai t¹m heºm, Qswuq±m paq²jkgsim 5wylem oR jatavucºmter jqat/sai t/r pqojeil´mgr 1kp¸dor).

The main point of this passage appears to lie in the idea of the confirmation of the divine promise. The author of Hebrews conceives of God’s promise to Abraham as a kind of confirming oath whereby God demonstrates in the clearest possible fashion the abiding quality of the promise to bestow blessing upon Abraham. The theme of God’s oath in this passage complements the papyri in the sense that it definitively displays 1pide?nai the confirmation of God’s promise to Abraham in a way similar to how the executed contracts in the papyri display definitively the state of the official matters at hand. In both cases, something is made manifest, secure, open for all to see. Significantly, the function of the oath as a device to definitively attest, confirm and demonstrate is extended beyond the divine promise afforded to Abraham and is applied to the High Priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:11 – 22): Therefore if perfection teke¸ysir were through the levitical priesthood-for the people received the law through it-what need would there still be for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizadek and not according to the order called Aaron? For where there is a change of the priesthood, there of necessity occurs a change in the law as well. Now these things are being said of one who shared in another tribe, from which tribe no-one has a share at the altar. For it is clear pqºdgkom c²q that our Lord has descended from Judah, and with respect to this tribe Moses said nothing concerning priests. And it is even more abundantly clear ja· peqissºteqom 5ti jat²dgkºm 1stim if another priest arises who has emerged not according

Perfection as Definitive Attestation in Relation to the Christology of Hebrews

43

to the law of the fleshly commandment but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is being testified that: you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek….And this did not come to pass apart from the taking of an oath. Now on the one hand those who have become priests became so apart from an oath. But this one with an oath through the one who said to him: the Lord swore and shall not change his mind. You are a priest forever. And for this reason Jesus has become the guarantee (5ccuor) of a better covenant (EQ l³m owm teke¸ysir di± t/r Keuitij/r Reqys¼mgr Gm, b ka¹r c±q 1p’ aqt/r memoloh´tgtai, t¸r 5ti wqe¸a jat± tµm t²nim Leknis´dej 6teqom !m¸stashai Req´a ja· oq jat± tµm t²nim )aq½m k´ceshai. letatihel´mgr c±q t/r Reqys¼mgr 1n !m²cjgr ja· mºlou let²hesir c¸metai. 1v’ dm c±q k´cetai taOta, vuk/r 2t´qar let´swgjem, !v’ Hr oqde·r pqos´swgjem t` husiastgq¸\ pqºdgkom c±q fti 1n Yo¼da !mat´takjem b j¼qior Bl_m e·r Dm vukµm peq· Req´ym oqd³m Ly{s/r 1k²kgsem. ja· peqissºteqom 5ti jat²dgkºm 1stim, eQ jat± tµm bloiºtgta Lekwis´dej !m¸statai Reqe»r 6teqor, dr oq jat± mºlom 1mtok/r saqj¸mgr c´comem !kk± jat± d¼malim fy/r !jatak¼tou. laqtuqe?tai c±q fti s» Reqe»r eQr t¹m aQ_ma jat± tµm t²nim Lekwis´dej. !h´tgsir l³m c±q c¸metai pqoaco¼sgr 1mtok/r di± t¹ aqt/r !shem³r ja· !myvek´r – oqd³m c±q 1teke¸ysem b mºlor – 1peisacycµ d³ jqe¸ttomor 1kp¸dor di’ Hr 1cc¸folem t` he`. ja· jah’ fsom oq wyq·r bqjylos¸ar7 oR l³m c±q wyq·r bqjylos¸ar eQs·m Reqe?r cecomºter, b d³ let± bqjylos¸ar di± toO k´comtor pq¹r aqt¹m7 ¥losem j¼qior ja· oq letalekgh¶setai7 s» Reqe»r eQr t¹m aQ_ma7 jat± tosoOto ja· jqe¸ttomor diah¶jgr c´comem 5ccuorYgsoOr.)

Up until this point, we have not actually seen instances of perfection terminology in the passages from Hebrews we have gathered. Rather, we have examined the context of selected passages from Hebrews and have discovered a tone similar to what was seen in the non-literary papyri, namely, a tone of definitive attestation. This context provides a helpful hermeneutical clue to aid in the interpretation of Hebrews 7:11 – 22, where perfection terminology finally does occur. What is striking about this passage is the way the author takes pains to argue for the self evidence of his/her argument with expressions like: “for it is clear,” (pqºdgkom c²q) (Heb 7:14) and “it is even more abundantly clear” ( ja· peqisºtteqom 5ti jat²dgkºm 1stim) (Heb 7:15). Precisely what is clear and manifest for the author is the unique and surpassing value of the Priesthood of Christ. Here once again the theme of the divine oath figures in a central fashion, since it functions not only to confirm and guarantee the reality of Christ’s Priesthood but to demonstrate a priesthood fundamentally superior to the levitical priesthood of the past (Heb 7:18 – 19): For there occurs an abrogation of the commandment which came before on account of its very weakness and ineffectuality; for the law perfected

44

Chapter Two

(1teke¸ysem) nothing, but here is the introduction of a better hope through which we draw near to God ( !h´tgsir l³m c±q c¸metai pqoaco¼sgr 1mtok/r di± t¹ aqt/r !shem³r ja· !myvek³r oqd³m c±q 1teke¸ysem b mºlor 1peisacycµ d³ jqe¸ttomor 1kp¸dor di’ Hr 1cc¸folem t` he`).

What is important to take note of in this passage is that the oath, much like a perfected or notarized document, demonstrates or attests to the reality of Christ’s Priesthood in a definitive way. When the concept of Christ’s perfection is viewed in light of what we might call this revelatory or demonstrative aspect a particular Christological question emerges: if we are to understand Christ’s perfection according to this material notion of official attestation, then we must ask ourselves what according to the author of Hebrews has been fundamentally attested, revealed, and made manifest in Christ? In the remaining chapters of this dissertation I will contend that it is the beneficent character of Christ that has been definitively attested to.

CHAPTER THREE Beneficent Christology: The Son’s Solidarity with the Faithful The theme of the perfection of Jesus (Heb 2:10) appears initially within the larger textual context of Hebrews 2:5 – 18. Throughout this section of the letter Hebrews weaves theological explication and exhortation together in such a way that the figure of humanity assumes center stage within a larger narrative drama recounting how the Son fulfills the divine intention of bringing humanity to eschatological glory (Heb 2:10).1 Following a brief paraenetic passage that both celebrates the message of salvation and warns against “drifting” (paqaqu_lem) away from it (Heb 2:1 – 4),2 Hebrews returns to the topic of the angels first introduced in the exordium (Heb 1:4) in anticipation of a quotation taken from Psalm 8. Hebrews 2:5 – 8: For he did not subject the world to come tµm oQjoul´mgm tµm l´kkousam, of which we are speaking, to angels. But someone, somewhere, solemnly testified saying: ‘What is a human being that you remember him? Or a son of man that you take care for him? You have made him for a short time inferior to the angels. You have crowned him with glory and honor. You subjected all things beneath his feet (Oq c±q !cc´koir rp´tanem tµm oQjoul´mgm tµm l´kkousam, peq· Hr kakoOlem. dielaqt¼qato d³ po¼ tir k´cym7 t¸ 1stim %mhqypor fti lilm-sj, aqtoO, C uR¹r !mhq¾pou fti 1pisj´pt, aqtºm. Ak²ttysar aqt¹m bqaw¼ ti paq’ !cc´kour, dºn, ja· til0 1stev²mysar aqtºm, p²mta rp´tanar rpoj²ty t_m pod_m aqtoO).

The author’s reference to the world to come (Heb 2:5): tµm oQjoul´mgm tµm l´kkousam likely denotes the new plane of existence Jesus entered as a result of his exaltation to God’s right hand (see Heb 1:6); hence, the world to come suggests the eschatological reality of the new creation.3 As a result of the Son’s exaltation into heaven, the new “world to come” has in some sense been inaugurated, but it has yet to become 1 2 3

Koester, Hebrews, 221 – 23; see also Issacs, Sacred Space, 184. Here, as in 6:19, Hebrews employs a nautical metaphor. See Mitchell, Hebrews, 56. Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 45; see also Johnson, Hebrews, 90.

46

Chapter Three

fully realized for the faithful who shall inherit it.4 This estimation of fulfillment, at once realized and yet not fully consummated, accounts for the author’s characterization of the faithful at the end of chapter one as: “Those who are about to inherit salvation”(to»r l´kkomtar jkgqomole?m sytgq¸am) (Heb 1:14). The exalted distinction and status accorded to humanity in the new creation is emphasized by a reference to the angels’ roles as servants to the heirs oqw· p²mter eQs·m keitouqcij± pme¼lata eQr diajom¸am !postekkºlema. Similarly, in Hebrews 2:5, we see that the gift of the “world to come” is explicitly not for the angels (Oq c±q !cc´koir rp´tanem tµm oQjoul´mgm tµm l´kkousam). This reality of the new creation leads seamlessly to the presentation of, and a reflection upon, Psalm 8, which in its context both in the MT and in the Septuagint extols humanity’s exalted status in the creation.5 In terms of literary sources, the author’s dependence upon the Septuagint is clearly visible in Hebrews 2:7. Here the author reproduces the distinctive temporal reading6 that is found in the Septuagint: (bqaw¼ ti paq’ !cc´kour): “for a short time lower than the angels,” as a translation for the qualitative phrase preserved in the MT: A=8@4B üFB “a little lower than the gods.” Considered apart from its re-scripturalization in Hebrews, Psalm 8 is a celebration of humanity’s present attainment of “glory,” “honor,” and dominion over the Creation: You have made him for a short time inferior to the angels. You have crowned him with glory and honor. You subjected all things beneath his feet (Heb 2:7 – 8).

Hebrews modifies the psalm, however, in two fundamental ways: First, the human being of the psalm is clearly interpreted as a reference to Jesus.7 Second, the author of Hebrews places the celebratory vision of the psalm squarely in the realm of an unfulfilled divine intention.8 Hebrews accomplishes this by emphasizing the discrepancy between humanity’s present state and the promised vision as expressed in the psalm: Hebrews 2:8 – 9: Now in subjecting all things to him, he left nothing unsubjected to him; 4 5 6 7 8

Koester, Hebrews, 213. Mitchell, Hebrews, 68; Johnson, Hebrews, 90. Koester, Hebrews, 216. Mitchell, Hebrews, 69. Koester, Hebrews, 219 – 220.

Beneficent Christology: The Son’s Solidarity with the Faithful

47

but as it is now MOm de ;, we do not yet see all things as having been made subject to him. But we do see Jesus, who for a short time was made inferior to the angels tom` d³ bqaw¼ ti paq’ !cc´kour Akattyl´mom YgsoOm and crowned with glory and honor through the suffering of death, so that by god’s grace he might taste death on behalf of everyone (1m t` c±q rpot²nai aqt` t± p²mta oqd³m !v/jem aqt` !mupºtajtom. MOm d³ oupy bq_lem aqt` t± p²mta rpotetacl´ma7 t¹m d³ bqaw¼ ti paq’ !cc´kour Akattyl´mom bk´polem YgsoOm di± t¹ p²hgla toO ham²tou dºn, ja· til0 1stevamyl´mom, fpyr w²qiti heoO rp³q pamt¹r ce¼sgtai ham²tou).

Hebrews further emphasizes this discrepancy between God’s intention for humanity and its fulfillment through the person of Jesus by means of the deliberate rhetorical strategy of deferring the name of Jesus to the conclusion of the clause in verse 9: t¹m d³ bqaw¼ ti paq’ !cc´kour Akattyl´mom bk´polem Ygsoumˆ . The rhetorical effect is clear: it is only in and through Christ, who serves as the representative of humanity, that this divine intention for glory and honor celebrated in the psalm becomes a renewed reality.9 As humanity’s representative, Jesus both fulfills and displays the divinely intended sovereignty and thereby becomes the surety of the reality to come for all humanity.10 Although this discrete image of Christ as humanity’s representative is a new one, it is important to appreciate that it complements and builds upon earlier images of exaltation and sacrifice in the letter. For example, the sacrificial theme first announced in 1:3c is resumed in 2:9 with the reference both to Jesus’ suffering of death t¹ p²hgla toO ham²tou and to his tasting death ce¼sgtai ham²tou. Similarly, the theme of the exaltation of Jesus first alluded to in 1:3d complements the image of Jesus being crowned with “glory” and “honor” in 2:9. Even the motif of Christ’s relationship with the angels that was first announced in the exordium is revisited, but now with a decidedly new emphasis. In the sacrificial context of Heb 2:9, it is not Christ’s superiority that is stressed, but rather his being made inferior to the angels. The temporal emphasis upon the shortness of time for his humiliation, t¹m d³ bqaw¼ ti paM !cc´kour however, speaks implicitly to Christ’s ultimate superiority and looks forward to the expectation of Jesus’ exaltation when he is crowned with glory and honor. The sacrificial imagery inherent to this image of Christ as humanity’s representative leads climactically to the result clause of verse 9: “…so that, by God’s grace, he might taste death on behalf of 9 Pfitzner, Hebrews, 62. See also F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 74. 10 See Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 48.

48

Chapter Three

everyone”(…dpyr w²qiti heoO rp³q pamt¹r ce¼sgtai ham²tou). Foundational, therefore, both to the fulfillment of the psalm and to Christ’s representative function alongside humanity is the reality of Christ’s suffering and death on behalf of “everyone” (rp³q pamtºr). As Lane notes, the phrase “by the grace of God” (w²qiti heoO), speaks to God’s “gracious disposition” at the heart of Christ’s suffering and death.11 Here the theme of divine beneficence is expressed through the image of Christ as humanity’s representative. As the representative for humanity, Christ fulfills the exalted promise of the psalm by suffering on the behalf of humanity. This motif of divine beneficence—along with its connection to the image of Christ as humanity’s representative—becomes clearer in the next verse, where we see the first instance of perfection language being applied to Jesus: Hebrews 2:10: For it was fitting for Him =pqepem c±q aqt`, on account of whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many children to glory, to perfect tekei_sai the leader of their salvation t¹m !qwgc¹m t/r sytgq¸ar aqt_m through sufferings (=pqepem c±q aqt`, di’ dm t± p²mta ja· di’ ox t± p²mta, pokko»r uRo»r eQr dºnam !cacºmta t¹m !qwgc¹m t/r sytgq¸ar aqt_m di± pahgl²tym tekei_sai).

The reference to what was fitting for God functions to affirm the propriety of God’s action of leading humanity to glory through the suffering and death of the Son.12 Such propriety, however, is not on the order of an abstract reflection; rather, propriety indicates an attention to what humanity requires. As Harold Attridge argues: “Propriety here is not a consequence of God’s nature, but of human needs and the salvific action that meets them.”13 Like Attridge, Lane also stresses the anthropological significance of =pqepem, when he argues that the propriety in question highlights something definitive concerning the character of God. Since it was God’s purpose for humanity to have dominion, it was therefore fitting for God to inaugurate the vision of Psalm 8, despite any and all present experiences to the contrary that might seem to mock the fulfillment of this promise.14 Such a 11 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 49 12 See Alan C. Mitchell, “The Use of prepein and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992) 681 – 701. 13 Attridge, Hebrews, 82. 14 See Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 55.

Beneficent Christology: The Son’s Solidarity with the Faithful

49

preoccupation with the requirements of human need is especially apparent in our author’s selective quotation of Psalm 8. The author significantly omits the first three verses of the psalm, verses that speak more directly to God’s majesty. In their place the author commences his quotation with the decidedly more anthropological content of verse 4: “What is a human beeing that you remember him? Or a son of man that you take care for him?” It is in this context of the centrality of human need where another discrete image of Christ emerges. Christ appears not only as the representative of humanity who fulfills the promise of Psalm 8; he is also the !qwgcºr who is perfected through suffering. The root lexical definition of the Greek noun, !qwgcºr, connotes the sense of a beginning or the origination of a thing.15 The noun appears twice in Hebrews, and in both cases it is applied to Christ as the subject, here in 2:10 and then in 12:2: “…Let us fix our eyes upon the leader and perfector ( !qwgc¹m ja· tekeiyt¶m) of the faith, Jesus.” Elsewhere in the New Testament the noun is quite rare; it appears only in Acts (Acts: 3:15 & 5:30 – 31) where it is translated by the NRSV as “author” and “leader” respectively.16 Interestingly enough, the image of the death of Jesus assumes a central place in both these instances from Acts, thereby complementing Hebrews’ references both to Christ’s suffering in 2:10 and to his “tasting death” in 2:9. In Acts 3:15, Peter castigates the people of Israel as the ones who handed over Jesus to the authorities and thereby killed the “author of the life” (t¹m d³ !qwgc¹m t/r fy/r). The second occurrence (Acts 5:30 – 31) once again appears in the context of Peter’s application of culpability for Jesus’ death, this time to Israel’s leaders in the council. In his speech, Peter characterizes Jesus as “this leader and savior” ( !qwgc¹m ja· syt/qa): “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you violently murdered having hung him to a piece of wood. God uplifted to his right hand this leader ( !qwgcºm) and savior (syt/qa) so as to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” 15 Liddell & Scott, Greek English Lexicon, 121. See also G. Delling, TDNT 1,487 – 88. See also Johnson, Hebrews, 96. 16 For a discussion of the variety of ways in which the noun has been translated in modern versions of the New Testament see George Johnston, “Christ as Archegos,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981) 381 – 84. Johnston himself argues that !qwgcºr is best translated by the Hebrew noun for “prince,” 4MD. See also Paul Gerhard Müller, WQISTOS AQWGECOS : Der religionsgeschichliche und theologische Hintergrund einer neutestamentlichen Christusprädikation, (Frankfurt: Lang, 1973) 72 – 102.

50

Chapter Three

Heracles Imagery and the Motif of Divine Beneficence Supplying background for Hebrews’ presentation of Jesus as a salvific !qwgcºr is the suggestive proposal which argues for the relevance of Heracles imagery for clarifying certain features of the Christology of Hebrews. In one of the earliest studies to explore this topic, Wilfred Knox argued that specific imagery in the New Testament—in particular Hebrews 2:10 and the kenosis hymn in Philippians 2:6 ff – complemented contemporary Hellenistic descriptions of semi-divine heroes who descended to earth to aid humankind.17 One of these heroes is the legendary Heracles. The offspring of Zeus and a human mother named Alcmene, Heracles appears initially to have been accorded the status of a hero, namely, he was considered to have been a human being, albeit an extraordinary one.18 In several important respects, however, the figure of Heracles appears atypical when viewed in light of characteristics typically associated with a hero. For example, while it was generally believed that the influence of a hero radiated from his personal tomb, Heracles was unique in this regard since the tradition did not connect him with a particular grave.19 Moreover, whereas the worship of a particular hero was usually relegated to a localized region, devotion to Heracles extended throughout Greece and even far beyond its borders.20 Perhaps the most unique feature attaching to the Heracles legend is that Heracles was remembered as a mere mortal man who nonetheless became a god.21 An important aspect of the myth centered on Heracles’ achievement of immorality, which was acquired by virtue of toil and 17 Wilfred L. Knox, “The ‘Divine Hero’ Christology in the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948), 231. Earlier treatments dealing more specifically with the figure of Heracles in relation to the Gospels include: Emil Ackermann, “De Senecae Hercule Oetaeo,” Philologus Supplementband 10 (1907) 323 – 428; Friedrich Pfister, “Heracles und Christ,” Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 34 (1937) 42 – 60. For an argument against the application of a Heracles motif in Hebrews, see Pfitzner, Hebrews, 70. 18 W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods (London: Methuen, 1950) 235. 19 David Aune, “Heracles and Christ: Heracles Imagery in the Christology of Early Christianity.” In Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, Wayne Meeks. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 5 20 Guthrie, Greeks and their Gods, 239. 21 Guthrie, Greeks and their Gods, 232.

Heracles Imagery and the Motif of Divine Beneficence

51

hardship.22 Drawing an intriguing parallel between the Christology of Hebrews and this dimension of the Heracles myth, Harold Attridge argues that by virtue of the experience of suffering and death Christ likewise achieves the status of High Priest and, like Heracles, achieves immortal glory in the sense of being exalted to heaven.23 Indeed, the similarities between the figures of Christ and Heracles are suggestive. For example, in secular literature dealing with Heracles the noun !qwgcºr appears in order to depict Heracles variously as a founder, leader or champion.24 Thus, in a speech to the citizenry of Tarsus, Dio Chrysostom describes Heracles as “your founder Heracles” (b !qwgc¹r rl_m Jeqajk/r).25 Aelius Aristides similarly applies the term !qwgcºr to Heracles in the sense both of a “leader” and “champion.”26 In Hebrews 2:10 the sense of “leader” or “pioneer” is probably the best translation of !qwgcºm due to the proximity of the noun to the participle !cacºmta), which itself carries the notion of leading.27 The points of contact extend, moreover, beyond the shared designation of ( !qwgcºr) for both Heracles and Christ. A particularly striking similarity between Heracles imagery and the Christology of Hebrews appears in Hebrews’ description of Christ as one who has conquered the devil and the “fear of death,” thereby liberating death’s slaves: Heb 2:14 – 15: …In order that, through death di± toO ham²tou, he might destroy the one who held the power of death t¹m t¹ jq²tor 5womta toO ham²tou, that is, the devil, and release those who were subject to the slavery of the lifelong fear of death (…Vma di± toO ham²tou jataqc¶s, t¹m t¹ jq²tor 5womta toO 22 Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” pg. 7: “Heracles’ attainment of immortality was regarded in the tradition as a consequence of the successful completion of the Dydej²hkor, or Twelve Labors (see: Lucian Deorum Concilium 6). Consequently, the message conveyed was that through toil and suffering, a human being can become a God.” 23 Harold Attridge, “Liberating Death’s Captives: Reconsideration of an Early Christian Myth.” in Gnosticism & the Early Christian World. ed. James E. Goerhing, Charles W. Hedrick, Jack T. Sanders, Hans Dieter Betz. (Sonoma, Calif: Polebridge Press, 1990) 110 – 112. 24 Johnson, Hebrews, 96. 25 Dio Chrysostom Or. 33.1 26 Charles A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides, the Complete Works (Leiden: Brill, 1981, 1986) 1:203; 2:241. 27 Attridge, Hebrews, 88. Lane, however, favors the translation: “champion.” See Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 57.

52

Chapter Three

ham²tou, toOt’ 5stim t¹m di²bokom, ja· !pakk²n, to¼tour, fsoi vºb\ ham²tou di± pamt¹r toO f/m 5mowoi Gsam douke¸ar).

The depiction of Christ at work here is essentially that of a “champion,” who serves humanity through his suffering and death.28 More specifically, the dominant image in this essentially mythological motif is that of Christ vanquishing the power of death. A very similar mythological pattern also appears in Euripedes’ play, the Alcestis. The plot depicts the hero Heracles as descending to the underworld in order to rescue the wife of Admetus, Alcestis. The central narrative action depicts Alcestis as having selflessly died in her husband’s place as a consequence of her husband’s failure to offer an appropriate wedding sacrifice to the goddess Artemis:29 ….For I must save the woman newly dead, and set Alcestis in this house again, and render to Admetus good for good. I go. The sable-vestured King of Corpses, Death h²matom will I watch for, and shall find, I trow, drinking the deathdraught hard beside the tomb. And if I lie in wait, and dart from ambush, and seize, and with mine arms’ coil compass him, none is there shall deliver from mine hands his straining sides, ere he yield his prey.30

The Alcestis of Euripides (5th century B.C.E.) is admittedly far removed from the first century C.E. setting of Hebrews. However, in the following passage from Apollodorus, who is writing in the first century C.E., we see that the tradition of Heracles’ mastery of death was still extant and meaningful. Indeed, a fresco of the scene in which Admetus is informed that he must find someone to die in his place for his affront to the deity survives from Pompeii, thus attesting to the continued power of this story in the first century:31 Now Pelias had promised to give his daughter {Alcestis} to him who should yoke a lion and a boar to a car, and Apollo yoked and gave them to Admetus, who brought them to Pelias and so obtained Alcestis. But in offering a sacrifice at his marriage, he forgot to sacrifice to Artemis; therefore when he opened the marriage chamber he found it full of coiled snakes. Apollo bade him appease the goddess and obtained as a favour of the Fates that, when Admetus should be about to die, he might be released from death if someone should voluntarily choose to die for him. And when 28 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 56 – 57. 29 For a description of the play’s plot see Michael Grant, Myths of the Greeks and Romans (New York: Meridian, 1995) 222 – 225. 30 Euripides, Alcestis 840 – 49, vol. 4. trans. Arthur S. Way; (London: Heinneman, 1912). See also Seneca, Hercules Furens, 889 ff. 31 See Grant, Myths of the Greeks and Romans, illustration 51.

Heracles Imagery and the Motif of Divine Beneficence

53

the day of his death came neither his father nor his mother would die for him, but Alcestis died in his stead. But the maiden {Artemis} sent her up again, or as some say, Hercules fought with Hades and brought her up to him.32

It is important to clarify at this point, however, an important difference, which distinguishes Hebrews’ portrait of Christ from the portrait of Heracles in the Alcestis. Hebrews emphatically maintains that it is through his own death di± toO ham²tou that Christ conquers the one who holds the power of death (Heb 2:14). For the author of Hebrews, therefore, a decidedly sacrificial dimension shapes the manner of Christ’s victory. This emphasis on the death of Christ complements Hebrews’ already established sacrificial portrait of Christ (Heb 2:9) and reveals a distinctive preoccupation with the idea of Christ’s personal sacrifice.33 This qualification is not meant to denigrate the parallel noted above between Euripides’ play and Hebrews’ Christology. Admittedly, like Heracles in the Alcestis, Christ also masters death, but he does so in a unique manner by himself personally dying on behalf of the faithful. As the author of Hebrews puts it: Christ “tastes death on behalf of everyone” (Heb 2:9). This more personal sacrificial tone is absent from the Alcestis and stems ultimately from our author’s Christian sensibilities. We will have more to say about this dimension of Christ’s personal commitment later in this chapter, as well as in the discussion of Christ’s Priesthood in chapter five. Such a unique sacrificial emphasis notwithstanding, the fundamental narrative situation as described in both Hebrews 2:14 ff and the Alcestis is remarkably similar. In both texts the focal act depicts the hero as descending to the underworld in order to rescue an unfortunate humanity held captive by death. As Harold Attridge argues, what we are confronted with in accounts depicting the descent of Heracles to the underworld is a very basic and pervasive mythic pattern of descent that constituted a typical way of conceptualizing salvation in the Hellenistic period. Attridge goes on to argue that, although it would be inaccurate to argue that Hebrews simply reproduces the myth of Heracles’ descent, it is true to say that what we see in Hebrews 2:14 ff is not unique; rather, it is a specifically Christian reinterpretation and application of a 32 Apollodorus, The Library, vol. 1 (trans. James George Frazer: London: Heinemann, 1921) 1. 9. 15. 33 Of course, it was an important aspect of the tradition concerning Heracles that at his death he received immortality: see Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 5.

54

Chapter Three

very basic and widespread mythic pattern for reflecting upon the nature of salvation.34 Quite apart from this shared mythological portrait that depicts the hero as a champion, Heracles imagery complements other emphases of Hebrews in more subtle ways. A distinctive feature of Hebrews’ estimation of Christ lies in its emphasis upon Christ’s human suffering. This assessment is especially visible in Hebrews 5:7 – 9, a section that displays one of the strongest expressions of Christ’s humanity in the entire New Testament.35 We will examine this passage more closely in chapter five, but for the moment we should point out what Hebrews sees as the result of Christ’s suffering. Not only is there a discernible connection made in the passage between suffering and perfection (Heb 5:8 – 9), but the author also makes the point of arguing that Christ’s suffering explicitly results in meeting the human need for salvation: “…and having been perfected, he became a source of eternal salvation for all who are obeying him” ( ja· tekeiyhe·r 1c´meto p÷sim to?r rpajo¼ousim aqt` aUtior sytgq¸ar aQym¸ou) (Heb 5:9). Much the same can be said for Hebrews 2:10. This passage also connects Christ’s suffering to his perfection, but as we have seen such suffering is also linked with the fulfillment of the divine intention of leading the children to glory. In other words, an anthropological concern is prominent, since Christ’s suffering and perfection figure into a much larger context wherein the motif of the meeting of the human need for salvation appears to be central.36 Interestingly, a similar preoccupation with both suffering and attention to human need is also apparent with respect to the mythical imagery surrounding the figure of Heracles. Near the close of the Hellenic and throughout the Hellenistic period we begin to see a conscious allegorization on the part of the philosophical schools when dealing with the various elements comprising the complex myth of Heracles. For example, the legendary travails of Heracles become for the Stoics a model of the strenuous observance of the virtuous life. For the Cynics, however, Heracles’ toils become emblematic of the goal of 34 Attridge, Hebrews, 70 – 82. 35 Wikgren, “Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 162. 36 See Grässer: “ “Vollenden” hat die allgemeine Bedeutung “ans Ziel bringen”. Es ist Ausdruck für ein soteriologisch akzentuiertes Christusgeschehen, in dem die Zussamengehörigkeit von Erlöser und Erlösten der entscheidende Punkt ist.” Grässer, Hebrer, 131.

Heracles Imagery and the Motif of Divine Beneficence

55

liberation from the exigencies of daily life and societal customs.37 Due to the vibrancy of the mythical imagery associated with him, the figure of Heracles begins to subsume other characteristics that extend beyond the realm of the physical prowess of a powerful warrior.38 One of these characteristics concerns Heracles as a figure whose suffering benefits humanity. We see this characterization of Heracles most clearly in Euripides’ Madness of Heracles, which takes as its theme the sufferings endured by Heracles for humanity’s well-being.39 Indeed, Heracles can simply be called (eqeqc´tgr bqoto?si ja· l´car v¸kor) “Men’s benefactor and their mighty friend.”40 In commenting on the play of Euripides, Ragnar Höistad notes the profound theme of philanthopia, which is associated with this delineation of Heracles as humanity’s benefactor through his suffering. Indeed, Höistad argues that beginning with the dramatic works of Euripides we see a transformation occur in the character of the legendary hero. One no longer sees the powerful martial hero of Homer or Hesiod, but a more subtle hero full of pathos and human connectedness: “Heracles has descended to the world of man, exposing himself to the same sufferings and the same capricious fates as man must face.”41 Heracles’ philanthropia, or devotion to humanity, is also noted by Isocrates, who in his Oration to Philip says of Heracles: I do not mean that you will be able to imitate Heracles in all his exploits; for even among the gods there are some who could not do that; but in the qualities of spirit t¹ t/r xuw/r Ghor, in devotion to humanity tµm vikamhqyp¸am and in all the good will which cherished toward the Hellenes you can come close to his purposes.42

References such as these to Heracles’ “qualities of spirit,” and “devotion to humanity,” illustrate a motivation to comment upon the character of Heracles, namely, his character of being devoted to humanity as their benefactor. As G. Karl Galinsky remarks, “Isocrates remembers Heracles 37 See Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 7 – 8. 38 G. Karl Galinsky, The Heracles Theme (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 101 – 25. See also Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 7. 39 Euripides, The Madness of Heracles, 698 – 70 vol. 3 (trans. Arthur S. Way, London: Heinemann, 1912); see also 1250 – 1310. 40 Madness of Heracles, 1252. 41 Ragnar Höistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Uppsala, 1948) 26 – 27. 42 Isocrates, To Philip 5. 114. vol. 1 trans. George Norlin; (London: Heinemann, 1928).

56

Chapter Three

best for his spiritual values, his ethos. Among them is philanthropia.” 43 We have already mentioned something of this aspect of Heracles’ devotion to humanity when we stressed the insistence of the tradition concerning Heracles’ presence to those who were in need.44 As Galinsky again says of this very “personal god”: “…he was once more the ( !ken¸jajor), the patron saint who would help one overcome all imaginable difficulties of life and hence was called invictus, the invincible one.”45 In a similar vein of argument, W. K. C. Guthrie notes that the memory of Heracles the man attaining immortality through toil and suffering functioned to render Heracles quite popular with ordinary people. By providing an example of a human being achieving the status of a deity, Heracles gave hope to ordinary persons that they too could perhaps attain immortality, or at the very least triumph over other lesser degrees of adversity. Indeed, as a model of human triumph, Heracles was consistently perceived as nearer to the ordinary person than other heroes or deities could be.46 Lewis Farnell touches upon this personal dimension of Heracles when he makes the point that, while Heracles was originally praised for his warlike qualities, in the later Hellenistic and imperial period he was praised just as often for his devotion to humanity and willingness to help them in their personal needs.47 The following passage from the 2nd century C.E. imperial rhetor Aelius Aristides is instructive in this regard, since it reveals nicely this beneficent dimension of Heracles: Aelius Aristides, Heracles 40:12: But why should we speak of ancient history. For the activity of the god is still now manifest. On the one hand, as we hear he does marvelous deeds at Gadira and is believed to be second to none of the gods. And on the other hand, in Messene in Sicily he frees men from all diseases, and those who have escaped danger on the sea attribute the benefaction equally to Poseidon and Heracles. One could list many other places sacred to the god, and other manifestations of his power.48

Galinsky, The Heracles Theme, 106. Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 17 – 18. Galinsky, The Heracles Theme, 127. Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods, 240. Lewis Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1921) 148. 48 P. Alieus Aristides, The Complete Works. Trans. Charles A. Behr, (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 240 – 41.

43 44 45 46 47

Heracles Imagery and the Motif of Divine Beneficence

57

This quote from Aristides reveals that ordinary people worshipped Heracles for the very practical help it was thought the god could provide. As Aristides describes it, Heracles appears as a god who is there to help people in the very ordinary but real adversities of life, such as the dangers encountered in shipwreck and disease. Reflecting this practical dimension of the god’s services, the titles of “victorious” ( jakk¸mijor) and “averter of evil” ()ken¸jajor) were popular epithets applied to Heracles and were associated primarily with Heracles’ perceived ability to ward off evil experiences, such as ghosts or diseases.49 Although it is difficult to gauge the worship of ordinary citizens in the empire, we do in fact possess a valuable index of popular devotion to Heracles as expressed in a first century C.E. inscription recovered from a house in Pompeii. In the following inscription Heracles appears as a deity whose function lies in warding off evil spirits: The son of Zeus, gloriously triumphant Heracles dwells herein. Let nothing evil enter(b toO Di¹r pa·r jakk¸mijor Jqajk/r 1mh²de jato?jei, lgd³m eQs¸ty jajºm).50

A similar sentiment concerning Heracles’ apotropaic function is seen in the witness of the Orphic Hymns 12.13 – 16, which dates from the early third century: Immortal, world-wise, boundless and irrepressible, come, O blessed one, bringing all charms against disease; with club in hand, drive evil bane away and with your poisonous darts ward off cruel death.51

The plea in the Orphic Hymns for Heracles to bring deliverance from the evil prospect of death calls to mind the important work of Seneca’s Hercules Furens. Seneca’s play is an important witness since it provides us with valuable evidence for the portrait of Heracles available in the first century C.E. Among the various themes of the play is the notion of the prevalent power of death.52 As in Euripides’ Alcestis, there are several passages in the play that depict Heracles descending to the underworld in order to conquer death. In the following passage, Juno recounts with

49 Farnell, Greek Hero Cults, 148. 50 G. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, (Berlin, 1878) 1138. 51 Apostolos N. Athanassakis, The Orphic Hymns: Text, Translation, and Notes (SBLTT 12: Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). 52 John G. Fitch, Seneca’s Hercules Furens: A Critical Text with Introduction and Commentary (Cornell University Press, 1987) 33 – 35.

58

Chapter Three

disdain what she takes to be the hubristic exploits of Heracles in the underworld: Nor are the lands of earth enough for him: behold, the doors of Dis are burst, and to the upper world he brings the booty taken from the vanquished king. ‘Tis not enough that he returns alive: the law that binds the shades is set at naught. Myself I saw him, when he had o’ercome the king of Hades and escaped the night of that deep underworld, display to Jove the spoils of Dis.53

Elsewhere in the play, there are passages that link Heracles’ conquest of the underworld more specifically with the portrait of Heracles as a benefactor towards humanity. As John Fitch argues with reference both to the themes of Heracles’ benevolence and power over death: “The impression that Hercules has voluntarily achieved a conquest of death’s power, benefiting all mankind, is a new element in the literary treatment of the twelfth labour. It is influenced by the religious conception mentioned earlier of Hercules as mortis victor and in some sense a deliverer from death.”54 …There chaos reigns, repulsive glooms, the hateful dark of night, the empty veil of clouds, the weary inactivity of that still, empty universe…The joyful day of Thebes is here; now at the altars sacrifice, and let the choicest victims fall. Ye maids and men, in mingled bands begin the stately choral dance; and let the cattle of the fields put off their yokes and be glad today; for by the hand of Hercules has peace from east to west been won…Borne now across the shoals of Tartarus, with Hell subdued, he comes again. No room is left for fear; for what beyond the realm of death remains? 55

The important thing to see in this passage is that the labours of Heracles in the underworld are viewed both as bringing peace to the world and allaying fear as a consequence of his victory. Such a portrait is entirely in keeping with the popular epithets noted above that designated Heracles as “averter of evil” ()ken¸jajor) and gloriously victorious jakk¸mijor.56 Through Seneca’s play we see, therefore, that this notion of Heracles as

53 Seneca, Herculens Furens I. 43 – 52. in George Duckworth, The Complete Roman Drama (New York: Random House, 1942) 460. 54 Fitch, Seneca’s Hercules Furens, 34. 55 Hercules Furens, 861ff 56 It should be pointed out, however, that an important element of Seneca’s play concerns the ultimate ubiquity of death despite Heracles’ conquest; see Hercules Furens, I. 176 – 204.

The Relevance of Heracles Imagery for Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus

59

a benefactor for humanity was still present and alive in the first century C.E. By reflecting upon such similarities between the figures of Heracles and Christ, it is not my intention to argue for a direct and uncomplicated parallel linking Heracles imagery with Hebrews’ portrait of Christ. Such a conclusion would be far too simplistic, since it would ignore the distinctive details of Hebrews’ Christology, details that are attendant upon our author’s Christian convictions.57 Thus, in the interest of offering an analysis of the parallels we have examined, I would argue that what most distinguishes the portrait of Heracles we have seen is the heroic quality of the hero’s beneficence to humanity. For example, in both the Alcestis of Euripides and in the Hercules Furens of Seneca a defining aspect of Heracles’ character is that of a champion who wrestles successfully with death and the underworld. This characteristic of Heracles as a heroic champion is also present to some degree in some of the other examples of literary evidence we have examined. Thus, in both the inscription from Pompeii and in the Orphic Hymns, Heracles is invoked as a powerful deliverer from adversity and disaster, even the extreme calamity of death.

The Relevance of Heracles Imagery for Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus In terms of fundamental character assessment, the beneficence manifested by Heracles toward humanity is marked by what I would characterize as a supremely heroic and self-assertive quality. This is particularly prevalent in Seneca’s Hercules Furens. In commenting on this play, both Galinsky and Fitch point out the interesting phenomenon that Heracles appears under Seneca’s interpretation as an almost violent type of strong man. In the context both of his wrestling with death and aspirations for immortality, Heracles reveals not only benevolence

57 For example, Hebrews does not picture Christ as someone who must overcome his passions. The struggle with the passions is, however, a familiar topos in the Stoic reinterpretations of the Heracles myth. See Attridge, “Liberating Death’s Captives,” 112.

60

Chapter Three

towards humanity, but also to some degree his arrogance and selfcenteredness.58 This heroic conquering element is also present in Hebrews, of course, and emerges especially clearly in the portrait of Christ as the divine Son who conquers on behalf of the faithful both Satan and the fear of death. However, I would argue that Christ’s beneficence toward humanity is of a different order than that described in the literary depictions of Heracles. Christ’s beneficence is marked not so much by heroic self-assertiveness, as by personal commitment and self-sacrifice. As we have already seen, the author of Hebrews depicts Christ not simply as vanquishing death, but as actually defeating death through his own personal death. And as we shall see in a moment, the author of Hebrews specifically presents Christ as destroying the devil and rescuing the faithful from the fear of death by virtue of the Son’s personal participation in human nature through the incarnation (Heb 2:14). In other words, the author depicts Christ as personally committed to the faithful in a radically deep fashion: Christ becomes like the faithful and personally sacrifices himself for them.59 These reflections are not meant to discount the obvious philanthropic and benevolent dimension attaching to the Heracles myth. Nevertheless, the themes of beneficence and philanthropia that shape the Christology of Hebrews are distinctive. Like Heracles, Christ is also beneficent, philanthropic, and committed to humanity, but his selfcommitment to humanity is more radically personal. He doesn’t simply fight for the faithful; nor is he there simply to offer help. Rather, Christ actively gives himself over to the faithful. Christ actually “tastes” death for the sake of others (Heb 2:9). Put in another way, just as Christ is presented by the author of Hebrews as surpassing in excellence all that came before, so we might also say that the author presents Christ as giving himself to humanity in a deeper and more radical manner than even the beneficent hero/god Heracles had done. As Craig Koester notes, it is worthwhile to remember that in articulating its portrait of Christ Hebrews likely has in mind “competing claims” that were being made for other deities.60 58 G. Galinsky, The Heracles Theme, 169; see also Fitch, Seneca’s Hercules Furens, 23 – 28. 59 Johnson speaks of the strong “affective” element integral to Hebrews’ argument. See Johnson, Hebrews, 104. 60 Koester, Hebrews 239.

The Relevance of Heracles Imagery for Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus

61

Despite these qualifications, it certainly seems clear that Heracles imagery is valuable for the insight it affords us into what was deemed especially memorable and meaningful to many ancient persons concerning this hero. On this note, it is important to appreciate in the myths concerning Heracles his remembered character as a benevolent hero/god intent upon helping humanity. As David Aune argues, echoing Guthrie, what made Heracles imagery so popular and attractive to ordinary people in antiquity was precisely this emphasis upon a hero/god who toiled and struggled on behalf of others and in the process became both a hopeful and helpful model for others.61 As such, the figure of Heracles offers us a paradigm of a deity connected with the broad notions of philanthropy, beneficence, and self-commitment. When we direct our attention to the description of Heracles as being benevolent to humanity, we are essentially making an observation concerning how those who cherished this hero articulated his character. A similar exploration of the ways in which Hebrews reflects upon the character of the Son may also prove helpful for the task of illuminating the complex Christology of Hebrews. When one views Hebrews from an exegetical perspective that sees the author as concerned with explicating the essential character of Christ, what emerges is a portrait expressive of Christ’s character as a benevolent and solicitous Son, who, in a way similar to Heracles, but to an even higher degree, is also remembered and celebrated for his love or philanthropia for his faithful.62 Indeed, I would argue that much of the suggestiveness of the proposed parallels between Heracles and Christ rests less in the parallels themselves and more in the essentially philanthropic presentation of the hero that underlies these parallels. Much of the exegesis to follow constitutes an attempt to show how such a philanthropic Christology can help us to interpret more accurately the deeper significance of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews. Such a philanthropic portrait is entirely consistent with the various instances suggestive of divine beneficence that we have already seen at work in chapter two of Hebrews. For example, we see such divine 61 Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 7. This paradigmatic dimension of Heracles is mentioned by Philo, see: De Legatione ad Gaium, 89. 62 I am using the term philanthropia here is the explicit sense of divine love for humans, which is its most basic sense according to Peder Borgen. See Peder Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings: Some Observation,” in Biblical and Humane: A Festschrift for John F. Priest, ed. Linda Bennett Elder, David L. Barr, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1996) 179.

62

Chapter Three

beneficence and philanthropia in the idea that that what is fitting for God suggests what is fitting for human salvation (Heb 2:10). Similarly, we see a concern for the categories of divine beneficence and philanthropia in the sacrificial imagery tied to Christ’s suffering and dying on behalf of the other (Heb 2:9). And we see the contours of a beneficent philanthropic Christology in the larger representative role that Christ assumes in relation to humanity in order to bring to fulfillment the vision of Psalm 8 (Heb 2:8 – 9). A Christology of divine beneficence or philanthopia becomes clearer as the remainder of chapter two proceeds. It is especially implicit in verses 11 – 14, where we see the author’s attempt to associate the Son as closely as possible with humanity, even to the point of the Son becoming like human beings in the incarnation. Beginning in 2:11, the previous affirmation of the Son’s representative status alongside humanity is now widened to include the notion of Christ’s radical solidarity with them: Hebrews 2:11 – 13: For the one who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all from one source; for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: I shall proclaim your name to my brothers; in the middle of the assembly I shall sing a hymn of praise to you. And again: I shall put my trust in him. And again: Here I am and the children whom God gave to me(f te c±q "ci²fym ja· oR "ciafºlemoi 1n 2m¹r p²mter7 di’ Dm aQt¸am oqj 1paisw¼metai !dekvo»r aqto»r jake?m k´cym7 !paccek_ t¹ emol² sou to?r !dekvo?r lou, 1m l´s\ 1jjkgs¸ar rlm¶sy se, ja· p²kim7 1c½ 5solai pepoih½r 1p’ aut`, ja· p²kim7 Qdo» 1c½ ja· t± paid¸a û loi 5dyjem b heºr).

The focal idea of this passage, namely, the conception of Christ’s solidarity with the “brothers,” is couched in the larger context of an avowal of Christ’s gift of sanctification to the faithful in Heb 2:11. The presentation of Christ as a sanctifier fte c±q "ci²fym and the faithful as the sanctified oR "ciafºlemoi is in keeping with the earlier assessment of Christ (Heb 1:3) as one whose sacrificial death offers a cleansing for sins. The designation of the faithful as sanctified implies their status as being consecrated, i. e., they are uniquely God’s possession by virtue of Christ’s sanctifying sacrificial death.63 The occurence of 2mºr in verse 11 presents somewhat of an interpretive crux since its gender, and hence referent, is ambiguous. If understood in a neuter sense it could imply the idea of human nature in the abstract. Conceived in a masculine sense, 63 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 163.

The Relevance of Heracles Imagery for Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus

63

2mºr may refer to God, or perhaps may signal reflection on Adam.64 The

most obvious meaning is that the one source is God, since in verse 10 it is clearly God who is the subject, who leads the “many children to glory” by perfecting the Son.65 The affirmation of this common origin serves to forge a strong link connecting Christ with the faithful, despite the Son’s pre-eminence by virtue of his status as the one who confers sanctification.66 This emphasis on the fundamental bond existing between Christ and his followers is further enhanced by the reference to Christ not being ashamed to call them brothers in Heb 2:11: di’ Dm aQt¸am oqj 1paisw¼metai !dekvo»r jake?m. The familial theme announced in 2:11 is now further elaborated and justified through the scriptural citations of Psalm 22:22 (21:23 LXX) and Isaiah 8:17 & 8:18. In all three citations it is Christ who is pictured as the speaker, and in two of them (Psalm 22:22 and Isaiah 8:18) distinctively familial terms are prominent: “my brothers” ( !dekvo?r lou) and the “children whom God gave to me” (t± paid¸a û loi 5dyjem b heºr) in Hebrews 2:12 and 2:13, respectively. Between these two primary citations is a quote (Heb 2:13) which likely comes from Isaiah 8:17. Here the familial theme is replaced by an emphasis upon Christ’s trusting reliance upon God. In the context of Hebrews, the verse likely serves as a model of requisite behavior for the audience to whom Hebrews is addressed.67 Psalm 22 was, of course, a standard text used by Christians to reflect upon the suffering fate of Christ. The author of Hebrews, however, chooses a verse later in the psalm where the theme of suffering is not stressed. Since the author wishes to highlight Christ’s solidarity with the faithful he has selected a verse where a familial image is dominant to?r !dekvo?r lou.68 Similarly, the reference to “the children” given to Christ in Hebrews 2:13 Qdo» 1c½ 5solai ja· t± paid¸a û loi 5dyjem b heºr highlights both the theme of Christ’s solidarity with humanity and the fact that humanity belongs to him as a community dedicated in faith to him.69 As Lane argues, this notion, the faithful of God as children, underscores the importance for Hebrews of the theme of intimacy and connectedness between Christ and the 64 65 66 67 68 69

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 164. Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 58. Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 58. Attridge, Hebrews, 91. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 166. Attridge, Hebrews, 91.

64

Chapter Three

faithful.70 I would simply build upon Lane’s comment and argue that such a theme of intimacy and connectedness can best be described as expressive of a Christology of divine philanthropia. We turn now to the passage featuring the mythical portrait of Christ conquering the devil and the fear of death, a section that we have already touched upon briefly in relation to Heracles imagery. With verse 14 the prominent theme of Christ’s solidarity and bond with humanity first announced in Hebrews 2:9, and elaborated further in 2:11 – 13, now culminates in a description of the Son’s incarnation: Hebrews 2:14 – 16: Therefore since the children have shared in blood and flesh, so he himself in just the same way participated in the same things, in order that through death he might destroy the one who held the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who were subject to the slavery of the lifelong fear of death. For certainly he does not take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham (9pe· owm t± paid¸a jejoim¾mgjem aVlator ja· saqjºr, ja· aqt¹r paqapkgs¸yr let´swem t_m aqt_m, Vma di± toO ham²tou jataqc¶s, t¹m t¹ jq²tor 5womta toO ham²tou, toOt’ 5stim t¹m di²bokom, ja· !pakk²n, to¼tour, fsoi vºb\ ham²tou di± pamt¹r toO f/m 5mowoi Gsam douke¸ar. oq c±q d¶pou !cc´kym 1pikalb²metai !kk± sp´qlator )bqa±l 1pikalb²metai).

One sees in 2:14 – 18 a tightly constructed and highly unified section wherein individual words and phrases expressive of the theme of relationship and intimacy function to underscore the degree of communion shared by Christ and the faithful: “Therefore since the children have shared ( jejoim¾mgjem) in blood and flesh, so he himself in just the same way participated (let´swem) in the same things” (Heb 2:14); “For this reason he was obliged to be made like the brothers”(to?r !dekvo?r bloiyh/mai) (Heb 2:17). Hebrews further enhances the theme of fellowship between the Son and humanity by means of supplying adverbial elements that subtly deepen the theme of an intimacy of relationship. For example, we read in 2:14 that Christ participated in humanity’s nature in “just the same way”(paqapkgs¸yr); and a little further on in 2:17, we are told that Christ became like bloiyh/mai the faithful in “every way” ( jat± p²mta). As humanity’s representative, Christ’s immersion in the human condition is radically deep.71 70 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 60. 71 See Neville Clark, “Reading the Book. 2. The Letter to the Hebrews,” Expository Times 108 no. 2 (1996) 39.

The Relevance of Heracles Imagery for Hebrews’ Portrait of Jesus

65

This insistence on Christ’s profound solidarity with humanity, even to the point of becoming like them in the incarnation, sets the stage for the strong emphasis upon the theme of salvation that dominates the rest of the section. The salvation sytgq¸ar which the author warned the community not to neglect in 2:3 now receives more distinct content through the lens of the incarnation. The ultimate purpose of the incarnation in terms of the salvation it effects can best be described as double-tiered in character: through his own death, Christ destroys the power of the devil who holds humanity captive and thereby relieves humanity from what the author calls “slavery to the lifelong fear of death” (vºb\ ham²tou di± pamt¹r toO f/m 5mowoi Gsam douke¸ar). William Lane has argued that reflection upon the adversarial role of death and the devil in relation to humanity was a feature of the Wisdom tradition.72 For example, in Wisdom 2:23 – 24, there is an explicit connection made between humanity’s legacy of corruption and the devil’s envy; and in Sirach 40:2, we see a similar link forged between anxiety and death in the context of Sirach’s reflection on the tragic fate encompassing humanity: “Perplexities and fear of heart are theirs, and anxious thought of the day of their death.” Such biblical precedents as these, along with specific prophetic motifs in particular, have led Victor Pfitzner to argue that an Old Testament understanding which conceives of God as the mighty defender and warrior of Israel fits this section of Hebrews better than a Hellenistic mythological pattern. According to this model, Yahweh is pictured as the one who rescues his people from every manner of tyrant, including death:73 “The Lord goes forth like a soldier, like a warrior he stirs up his fury; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes” (Isaiah 42:13). Quite apart from this important question of the possible conceptual influences at work in 2:14 – 15, it is very likely, as Lane suggests, that the reference to the fear of death in Hebrews 2:15 may have emerged more in connection with the concrete historical situation of a community facing the fearful prospect of imperial persecution.74 If Lane is correct about this, and I think he is, then the description of Christ effecting a salvation specifically from the fear of death would serve the eminently pastoral purpose of consoling the members of the community to whom 72 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 61 73 Pfitzner, Hebrews, 70. 74 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 63.

66

Chapter Three

this epistle was addressed. If indeed the situation of Hebrews, insofar as we can recover it, suggests a community experiencing some form of persecution, then such a historical context may help us better understand how the philanthropic Christology I have been emphasizing has its generative setting in the concrete lives of a community of early Christians experiencing some form of social distress. Beyond the primary salvific metaphor of Christ removing the fear of death, two other metaphors expressive of salvation occur in the context of 2:14 – 18. In both instances the concepts of divine beneficence and philanthropia are once again central. The first is the metaphor which pictures Christ as taking hold of the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16): oq c±q d¶pou !cc´kym 1pikalb²metai !kk± sp´qlator )bqa±l 1pikalb²metai. While the root meaning of the verb 1pikalb²metai

suggests the very concrete idea of taking hold of someone, it can also mean to take care for, or to be concerned about in a more metaphorical sense.75 The metaphorical reading suggestive of the idea of care or concern is consistent with the familial images we have already seen. Just as Christ is depicted as gathering the children (Heb 2:13) and calling them bothers (Heb 2:11), so here he is shown as taking concern for the seed of Abraham, i. e., the community of Christians who have faith in him, just as Abraham had faith.76 The sense of care or concern implicit to the verb 1pikalb²metai also recalls the quotation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2:6, where God is described as remembering or taking care for humanity: t¸ 1stim %mhqypor fti lilm-sj, aqtoO, C uR¹r !mhq¾pou fti 1pisj´pt, aqtºm. The second and final salvific metaphor expressive of divine beneficence and philanthropia occurs at the close of chapter two. In Hebrews 2:17, Christ is for the first time called a High Priest. Significantly, Christ’s sacrificial role as priest is immediately couched in terms designed to emphasize his solidarity with humanity on the one hand,77 and his compassionate concern for them, on the other (Heb 2:18). Significantly, the sacrificial activity of expiating sins is linked with Jesus’ solidarity with, and concern for, the faithful: Hebrews 2:17 – 18: For this reason, he was obliged to be made like the brothers in every way, so that he might become a merciful and faithful High Priest with what 75 F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 87; see also Westcott, Hebrews, 54. 76 Guthrie, Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 94 77 Grässer, Hebrer, 152.

Christ’s Perfection as the Philanthropia of the Son Attested and Displayed

67

pertains to God, and all for the purpose that he might make expiation for the sins of the people. For since he himself was tested by means of what he had suffered he is able to give help to those who are being tested (fhem ¥veikem jat± p²mta to?r !dekvo?r bloiyh/mai, Vm a 1ke¶lym c´mgtai ja· pist¹r !qwieqe»r t± pq¹rt¹m he¹m eQr t¹ Rk²sjeshai t±r "laqt¸ar toO kaoO. 1m è c±q p´pomhem aqt¹r peiqashe¸r, d¼matai to?r peiqafol´moir bogh/sai).

With the introduction of the priestly motif in 2:17 chapter two concludes in verse 18 with a highly pastoral and philanthropic christological portrait that highlights Christ’s intimate closeness to the faithful and his commitment to draw near to them in times of “testing.”

Christ’s Perfection as the Philanthropia of the Son Attested and Displayed Taking seriously the themes of divine beneficence and solicitude for the faithful operative in 2:5 – 18, the philanthropic dimension integral to our author’s Christology must be brought to bear upon the issue of the motif of the perfecting of Jesus. Throughout Hebrews 2:5 – 18 we have seen a concern for the well being and destiny of the faithful. For example, God’s purpose in perfecting Christ through suffering is viewed as fitting or appropriate to the goal of leading the faithful to salvation (Heb 2:10). This same concern for the salvation of the community is further emphasized in 2:11, where Christ is depicted as not being ashamed to call the faithful his brothers. And similarly, it is for the precise benefit of the faithful that Christ shares their human nature in order to destroy the devil and the fear of death (Heb 2:14 – 15). It is the community of the faithful whom Christ is concerned about, and it is Christ upon whom the members of the community can call in times of distress (Heb 2:16 – 18). When we take seriously the themes of divine beneficence and solicitude that inform our author’s argument, we see that an important dimension of the Christology of Hebrews centers on what the person and work of Jesus means for the community. And it is precisely in connection with such a Christology of divine beneficence where I think the deeper meaning of Christ’s perfection becomes clearer. I contend that the language of Christ’s perfection functions less to express any action that happened to Christ than it does to express a Christology of divine presence, i. e., a Christology in which Christ’s love and solicitude for the faithful are the paramount qualities of the Son. Put another way,

68

Chapter Three

we might say that the concept of Christ’s perfection functions to confirm for the recipients of this epistle something about the character of Jesus, the kind of a divine being Christ is. Christ’s perfection is ultimately revelatory, then, of Christ’s character as a loving and beneficent savior for his people. If we were to use an imperfect analogy here, we could say that much as the laws of Leviticus function as a grammar designed to structure and delineate the life of Israel before God, so the motif of Christ’s perfection functions as a grammar for expressing and delineating the character of Christ as a Son motivated by divine beneficence or philanthropia in relation to the faithful. Of the four models of perfection we examined in chapter one, the experiential model with its emphasis upon the personal nature of Christ’s work perhaps comes closest to what I am trying to say here. For commentators such as Vanhoye, Christ’s perfection lies essentially in the degree to which he identifies with humanity. Picking up on Hebrews’ distinctive portrait of Christ as both Priest and victim, Vanhoye argues that what makes Christ a “perfect” High Priest is the fact that his sacrifice is a personal one. Christ offers his whole self and sheds his own blood. Perfection here has a decidedly personal dimension, since it locates the deeper meaning and surpassing value of Christ’s sacrifice in the theological claim that Christ sacrificed himself and not another. In what way, then, might this understanding of perfection as descriptive of Christ’s beneficence and philanthropia tie into the material notion of perfection that we discovered with respect to the non-literary papyri in chapter 2? In that chapter we proposed the viability of a material application of perfection conceived as official and public attestation. This proposal emerged from the investigation of various papyrological evidence in which the language of perfection functioned in a specific material sense: to manifest or to attest something in an official, legal, and public manner. In more general terms, we saw how the language of perfection in the context of the non-literary papyri served to render something definitively or manifestly clear, such as a business transaction, or even the registration of a slave. With this proposal in place, we went on to show how the idea of definitive attestation complements important aspects of the Christology of Hebrews. We concluded by proposing that this model of perfection understood as definitive attestation might provide a meaningful hermeneutical key for interpreting the christological significance of the motif of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews.

Christ’s Perfection as the Philanthropia of the Son Attested and Displayed

69

We are now ready to connect this proposal with the specific concept of Christ’s perfection. The notion of perfection as definitive attestation gleaned from the non-literary papyri fits particularly well with the understanding of perfection we are arguing for in this chapter, i. e., as having more to do with commentary upon the character of Christ than with denoting an action or activity affecting Christ’s person as such. As we saw in the examples from the non-literary papyri, to say that a document is perfected is to make a public, almost official statement of some fact in as manifestly clear a way as possible. Indeed, perfection amounts in the papyri essentially to a disclosure or attestation of something in a definitive fashion. From our exegesis of Hebrews 2:5 – 18, we have seen that what is specifically disclosed or attested about Christ is his solidarity and intimacy with the faithful. This movement of intimacy first appears in Christ’s representative function in relation to humanity. Thereafter, the notion of intimacy and solidarity are heightened in various ways, such as, through the idea that Christ and the faithful have one source; through the use of familial metaphors; and finally through Hebrews’ insistence on the radical depth that this intimacy continues in the act of the incarnation of the Son. As we have seen, the result of this intimacy and solidarity is a thoroughly beneficent one centered upon the faithful. Thus, at the close of chapter two Christ appears for the first time as the merciful High Priest, who not only removes the sins of the people, but just as importantly is able to help the faithful because of what he himself has suffered. With this material notion of perfection as definitive attestation in place, we can argue that the language of perfection as applied to Christ in 2:10 functions to display, attest, and fundamentally make manifest the character of Christ, namely, the beneficent Son marked by divine philanthropia for the faithful.

CHAPTER FOUR Philanthropia as Christological Key: Preliminary Remarks We have argued that integral to Hebrews’ portrait of Christ perfected is an implicit commentary on the beneficent character of the Son: He is the divine Son of God motivated by philanthropia or love for the faithful. Since this argument presupposes that the author of Hebrews has crafted a Christology in light of the idea of divine beneficence, it seems worthwhile to examine the ways in which the conceptual category of philanthropia was articulated, particularly in the first century C.E. The following is meant to provide a representative illustration of the usages of philanthropia and its cognates, especially as these occur in the first century C.E. imperial period. Outside of Hebrews, the noun vikamhqyp¸a occurs a total of three times in the New Testament:1 Acts 27:3; 28:2; and Titus 3:4. In Acts 27:3, the term functions adverbially vikamhq¾pyr to describe the kindness shown Paul by his captor, the centurion Julius, who allows Paul to visit some friends at Sidon while on his way to trial in Rome: On the next day we came ashore at Sidon; and Julius treated Paul kindly by permitting him to go and receive care from his friends (t0 te 2t´qô jat¶whglem eQr Sid_ma, vikamhq¾pyr te b Yo¼kior t` Pa¼k\ wqgs²lemor 1p´tqexem pq¹r to»r v¸kour poqeuh´mti 1pileke¸ar tuwe?m).

Acts 28:2 utilizes the noun in order to describe the inhabitants of the island of Malta as “friendly” or “kind” (vikamhqyp¸am). And the natives displayed extraordinary kindness to us; for after they had kindled a fire they received all of us on account of the rain and cold (oVte b²qbaqoi paqe?wom oq tµm tuwoOsam vikamhqyp¸am Bl?m, ûxamter c±q puq±m pqosek²bomto p²mtar Bl÷r di± t¹m ret¹m t¹m 1vest_ta ja· di± t¹ xOwor).

In both of these instances the noun vikamhqyp¸am and the adverb vikamhq¾pyr denote the virtue of human kindness and benevolence

1

The term does not occur in Hebrews. The noun vikadekv¸a, however, does occur in Heb 13:1.

Philanthropia as Christological Key: Preliminary Remarks

71

extended to another person or persons.2 This humanistic notion of philanthropia as descriptive of human benevolence and goodwill is well illustrated in the following quote from Plutarch. In an attempt to console his wife upon the death of their daughter, Plutarch recalls the following memory from their daughter’s infancy: She had herself, moreover, a surprising natural gift of mildness and good temper…For she would invite the nurse to offer the breast and feed with it not only other infants, but even the inanimate objects and playthings she took pleasure in, as though serving them at her own table, dispensing in her kindness vikamhqyp¸ar what bounty she had and sharing her greatest pleasures with whatever gave her delight.3

When compared to the essentially humanistic application of philanthropia in Acts of the Apostles and Plutarch, the application of the term in the Letter to Titus is immediately distinctive. In Titus philanthropia bears a divine, not a human referent. While praising the transformative effects of salvation among the members of the community, the author of Titus relates philanthropia specifically to a divine disposition: Titus 3:3 – 5: Formerly we were foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various kinds of desires and pleasures, living our lives in wickedness and envy, hateful, and despising one another. But when the kindness and love for humanity of God our savior appeared fte d³ wqgstºtgr ja· B vikamhqyp¸a 1pev²mg toO syt/qor Bl_m heoO he saved us according to his mercy through a washing of regeneration and a renewal of the holy spirit and not through works which we ourselves performed in righteousness (Olem c²q pote ja· Ble?r !mºgtoi, !peihe?r, pkam¾lemoi, douke¼omter 1pihul¸air ja· Bdoma?r poij¸kair, 1m jaj¸ô ja· vhºm\ di²comter, stucgto¸, lisoOmter !kk¶kour. fte d³ B wqgstºtgr ja· B vikamhqyp¸a 1pev²mg toO syt/qor Bl_m heoO, oqj 1n 5qcym t_m 1m dijaios¼m, $ 1poi¶salem Ble?r !kk± jat± t¹ aqtoO 5keor 5sysem Bl÷r di± koutqoO pakiccemes¸ar ja· !majaim¾seyr pme¼lator "c¸ou).

In this passage from Titus, the nouns vikamhqyp¸a and wqgstºtgr in verse 4 function essentially as synonyms, imparting to the term

2 3

This general, humanistic application was certainly available. See Milo van Veldhuizen, “Moses: A Model of Hellenistic Philanthropia,” The Reformed Review 38 (1985) 216. Plutarch, Consolatio ad uxorem 608D, Moralia, vol 7. (trans. Phillip H. De Lacey & Benedict Einarson; London: Heinemann, 1959).

72

Chapter Four

vikamhqyp¸a a strong connotation of the deity’s benevolence, kindness,

and service towards the faithful.4

Philanthropia as a Human Virtue As the preceding passages suggest, the virtue of philanthropia could commonly be applied to ordinary people in order to denote human kindness, friendliness, or tenderness. More typically, however, the virtue of philanthropia appears frequently in the Hellenistic and imperial periods in connection with eminent leaders or kings in order to describe their kindness, tolerance, or clemency. In keeping with this view, the historian Xenophon notes that the Persian King Cyrus was remembered more for his philanthropia than for his martial skills as a general,5 and that he “…showed at all times as great kindness of heart as he could” (…di± pamt¹r !e· toO wqºmou vikamhqyp¸am t/r xuw/r ¢r 1d¼mato l²kista 1mev²mifem).6

A text echoing Xenophon’s reflections, but coming from the milieu of Hellenistic Judaism, is the Letter of Aristeas. In the setting of the royal banquet held for the translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, king Ptloemy I inquires, “What is the most essential possession for a king? ‘Indulgence and love vikamhqyp¸a for his subjects, was the response, ‘for by these an indissoluble bond of good-will arises.”7 In the imperial period reflection on the virtue of philanthropia as an attribute of the ideal emperor appears in the writings of such authors as Plutarch, Philo and Josephus. Reflecting upon the cultural renaissance associated with Alexander the Great, Plutarch remarks: …And I think that the foremost of the artists of that age became so, not because they lived in Alexander’s day, but through what Alexander did for them. For a good climate and a lightness of the surrounding air produces a bountiful harvest; and likewise the favour, esteem, and benignity

4 5 6 7

Roger Le Déaut, “VIKAMHQYPIA dans la littérature grecque jusqu’au nouveau testament,” in Mlanges Eugne Tisserant vol.1 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964) 291 – 92. Xenophan, Cyropaedia, 8.4.7. Xenophan, Cyropaedia, 8.2.1. See also 1.4.1, 4.2.10. Aristeas to Philocrates ed. and trans. Moses Hadas (New York: Harper, 1951) 205.

Philanthropia as a Human Virtue

73

vikamhqyp¸a shown by a king evokes a rich increase in the arts and in men of

talent.8

The virtue of philanthropia figures prominently in various descriptions of the personal attributes of the Roman Caesars. Thus, in the following two passages, Plutarch describes both the clemency and deceptively kind persona of Julius Caesar. In the first passage we observe that the term philanthropia is applied in a fashion that extends beyond the notion of kindness to encompass the more specific ideas of clemency and tolerance in keeping with imperial propaganda claims. As we shall see in more detail below, there appears in the imperial period a clear link between the virtue of philanthopia and the notion of magnanimous forbearance and goodwill: …But Caesar sent to Labienus his money and his baggage; against Domitius, however, who was holding Corfinium with thirty cohorts under his command, he marched, and pitched his camp nearby. Domitius, despairing of his enterprise, asked his physician, who was a slave, for a poison; and taking what was given him, drank it, intending to die. But after a little, hearing that Caesar showed most wonderful clemency vikamhqyp¸ô towards his prisoners, he bewailed his fate, and blamed the rashness of his purpose.9 …At all events, the man who is thought to have been the first to see beneath the surface of Caesar’s public policy and to fear it, as one might fear the smiling surface of the sea, and who comprehended the powerful character hidden beneath his kindly vikamhq¾p\ and cheerful exterior, namely Cicero, said that in most of Caesar’s political plans and projects he saw a tyrannical purpose.10

Philo provides additional evidence for the notion of philanthropia as the ideal virtue of the Caesar in the following two descriptions of the emperor Caligula. In the case of Caligula, however, philanthropia appears ultimately as an unrealized ideal. …They could not believe that Gaius, who but now had been thought kind and humane vik²mhqypor, showing fairness and fellowship to all, had undergone at once so complete a change.11

8 Plutarch, De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute, 2.333F, Moralia, vol.4. (trans. Frank Cole Babbitt; London: Heinemann, 1936). 9 Plutarch, Caesar 34, Lives, vol. 7. (trans. Bernadotte Perrin; London: Heinemann, 1928). 10 Plutarch Caesar 4. 11 Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium 67, vol. 10 (trams. F. H. Colson; London: Heinemann, 1962).

74

Chapter Four

…Such were the ideas on which they dwelt in all their talks, and what principally weighed with them was their wish to think that the emperor was not cruel. For as they had hoped that kindness and humanity vikamhqyp¸am were established in his soul in a greater degree than in any of his predecessors they thought it very incredible that he had undergone all at once so complete a change to the reverse.12

The example of Caligula notwithstanding, we see how Philo praises the example of Augustus’ philanthropia, which he demonstrated by his respectful tolerance for Jewish customs. Realizing that Sabbath regulations prohibited the Jews from taking advantage of the monthly allotment of grain pqoset´tajto to?r diam´lousi talie¼eim to?r Youda¸oir eQr tµm rsteqa¸am tµm joimµm vikamhqyp¸am, “…he (Augustus) ordered the dispensers to reserve for the Jews till the morrow the charity which fell to all.”13 This passage from Philo reveals the interesting way in which the notion of the emperor’s philanthropia could take on larger connotations suggestive of magnanimity in general. Indeed, the image Philo provides of the ideal emperor is that of a ruler who confers benefits upon individuals out of an awareness of their legitimate need. Even in the passages concerning Caligula, the emperor appears as someone who should be concerned for his subjects. This sense of philanthropia suggestive of magnanimity appears in other more mundane contexts too. For example, in the following papyrus from Oxyrhynchus, Aurelius Horion, an official and landowner in Alexandria, requests a monetary benefaction from the emperors Severus and Caracalla. Although this papyrus comes from a later date in the empire, circa 200 C.E., it preserves an assessment of the ideal imperial attribute that is not substantially different from what we have seen in Philo. What is important to note is the official’s description of the character of the emperors as “most humane,” a description that stems from Aurelius’ expectation that the imperial rulers will extend him the particular benefaction he desires. Another interesting feature of this papyrus is the official’s usage of the conceptual category of philanthropia to describe his own motivations for appealing to the imperial authority: …To the most gracious Emperors, Severus and Antoninus, the saviors and benefactors of the world, Aurelius Horion, formerly strategus and archidicastes of the most illustrious city of Alexandria, greeting. Certain villages in the Oxyrhynchite nome, most humane vikamhqypºtatoi 12 Philo, De Legatione, 73. 13 Philo, De Legatione, 158.

Philanthropia as a Human Virtue

75

emperors, in which both I and my sons own estates, are utterly exhausted by the burdensome demands of the annual keitouqc¸ai… Accordingly having before me a both humane toO vikamhq¾pou and useful object I wish, in order that they may recover, to make a trifling benefaction to each one for the purchase of the hay, the revenue of which shall be devoted to the maintenance and support of those who are annually subject to the keitouqc¸ai on condition that…14

While an emperor’s philanthropia was a virtue most frequently noted by others, it could also be a self conscious ideal to aspire to. In the following papyrus, we see a valuable characterization of the emperor’s benevolent character written ostensibly by a Roman emperor himself, namely, Alexander Severus: …For it is not my aim to make money on all occasions, but rather by liberality vikamhqyp¸ô and the conferring of benefits to increase the welfare of this empire, in order that the governors dispatched by me to posts of rule, officers whom I tested and selected with the utmost care for dispatch–that they also may follow my instructions to behave with the utmost moderation.15

In keeping with the connection we have observed between philanthropia and the notions of tolerance and benevolence is the related idea that abstention from punitive behavior demonstrates the philanthropia of the ideal leader. A particularly good illustration of this assessment appears in Josephus’ encomium for the Roman general Titus, who is described by Josephus as extending peaceful terms of surrender to the besieged inhabitants of the Galilean town of Gishala. Clearly intending to emphasize Titus’ intentions of clemency, Josephus calls Titus’s overtures of peace “humane proposals” (kºcoir vikamhq¾poir).16 We should point out here that Josephus also employs philanthropia in a distinctively apologetic sense in order to refute slanders directed against both Moses and the Jewish nation as a whole. According to Josephus, the Jewish Law cultivates only the best of the virtues, including philanthropia:

14 P. Oxy 705 vol.4 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur Hunt (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904) 164 – 66. 15 Fayum Towns and their Papyri ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, and David G. Hograth (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1900) 116 – 121. 16 Josephus, Jewish War 4.96, vol. 3 (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; London: Heinemann, 1928).

76

Chapter Four

It seems clear to me, I think, that with respect to piety, fellowship, and love of humankind vikamhqyp¸am in general, not to mention justice, the ability to endure trial, and disregard for death, we have very well established laws.17

Josephus’ description of Titus essentially functions to praise and confirm the clement, tolerant character of Titus over and above any marshal emphasis. A particularly good example of this application of philanthropia conceived of as clemency comes from the following papyrus of the mid first century B.C.E. The papyrus deals with a petition from an ordinary Jewish farmer in the vicinity of Philadelphia to an official concerning a rent increase. The papyrus is especially valuable since it yields an ordinary person’s usage of the term philanthropia to convey the idea of toleration and clemency: To Zopyrus, epimeletes, from Judas son of Dositheus, Jew. I am a farmer of 3 arourae of dry ground near Philadelphia at the preexisting rental and an annual special fee of 4 artabae of wheat per aroura. This I have effected with great distress and expense, and have completed the annual payments for rent satisfactorily up to the 23rd year. But now Marres the village scribe has entered me, contrary to what is right, for the amount of 5.5 artabae of wheat over and above the amount of the rent, though I have never paid this sum. Therefore I appeal to your clemency t/r s/r vikamhqyp¸ar and request you if you will, to write to the proper authority for accurate details to be submitted to you, so that if the facts are as I state them, you may take care that I do not have to pay any improper exaction, and I myself may obtain my just rights. Farewell.18

Such examples reveal the ways in which philanthropia appears as a human virtue. At its most basic level of meaning, the term conveys the sense of human kindness and goodwill. In terms of more specific applications, however, the term appears frequently as a way to comment upon the ideal character of a ruler. As we have seen, in the imperial period the term frequently appears as a way to comment upon the emperor’s tolerant and magnanimous character in relation to the needs and concerns of his subjects.

17 Josephus, Against Apion II. 146, trans. Théodore Blum (Paris: Société d’ édition, 1972) 83. Translation my own. 18 P Ryll 4, 30 Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library at Manchester ed. C. H. Roberts and E. G. Turner (Manchester University Press, 1952) 130.

Philanthropia as a Divine Virtue: The Testimonies of Asclepius

77

Philanthropia as a Divine Virtue: The Testimonies of Asclepius We have observed that one of the principal meanings of the concept of philanthropia relates to the affirmation of human expressions of kindness, benevolence, tolerance, and clemency. The manner in which the author of Titus handles the term vikamhqyp¸a, however, suggests that the idea of divine benevolence towards humanity constitutes a second meaning attaching to the concept of philanthropia. Indeed, in both the Hellenic and Hellenistic periods, various authors applied the virtue of philanthropia to at least certain deities to describe their beneficent disposition to humanity, i. e., to denote the deity’s love for humanity.19 Thus, in the Symposium, Plato can describe Eros as the god who is “most friendly to men” (5sti c±q he_m vikamhqyºtator).20 And similarly, Philostratus calls the grain goddess Demeter “a lover of mankind” (B d³ he± vik²mhqypor).21 Plutarch especially emphasizes the theme of divine philanthropia and specifically argues that divine providence continually attends to humanity, particularly at stages of supreme distress in their lives. For example, during periods of illness Asclepius is invoked; similarly, Eilethyia tends to women in childbirth; and Hermes escorts souls of the deceased to the abode of the dead. Plutarch prefaces these comments relating to specific instances of divine care with a more general statement concerning the beneficence of the deity: Is it not, moreover, shocking and ungrateful of them to say such things, especially as they continue to profit by divinity’s love for man toO he¸ou toO vikamhq¾pou, which is everywhere dispensed and at no point fails him in his needs, even though some services are necessary rather than decorous? 22

In the following two passages Plutarch further connects the concept of philanthropia with this general conviction in the deity’s providential concern for humanity:

19 Peder Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings: Some Observations,” 176. See also André Pelletier, “la philanthropia de tous les jours chez les écrivains juifs hellénisés,” in Paganisme, Juda sme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique (éditions e. de Boccard: Paris, 1978) 36. 20 Plato, Symposium 189 D. 21 Philostratus, The Epistle of Appolonius 75 vol. 2. trans. F. C. Conybeare (London: Heinemann, 1912). 22 Plutarch, Moralia 758 vol. 9. Trans., Edwin L. Minar, F. H. Sandbach, W. C. Helbold (London: Heinemann, 1941).

78

Chapter Four

…Moreover, the Stoics themselves make no end of fuss crying woe and shame upon Epicurus for violating the preconception of the gods because he does away with providence, for they say that god is preconceived and conceived to be not only immortal and blessed but also humane vikam´ hqypom and protective and beneficent. This is true.23 …He fights especially against Epicurus and against those who do away with providence, basing his attack upon the conceptions that we have of the gods in thinking of them as beneficent and humane vikamhq¾pour.24

One finds a particularly valuable resource for discerning the popularity of ideas concerning divine philanthopia and divine beneficence in the testimonies devoted to the deity Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine and healing. While originally depicted as a human being in Homer, Asclepius soon took on in more legendary accounts the status of a semidivine being.25 Beginning in the Hellenistic period, and extending through the second century of the imperial period, the cult of Asclepius became increasingly popular. In addition to the famous shrines at Epidaurus and Pergamum, devotion to this deity appears to have been particularly pronounced in Rome, where the god of medicine rivaled in influence even the very popular Egyptian deities.26 Recognizing his preeminent status as a god of healing, those in distress arrived at sanctuaries dedicated to the deity in search of all manner of healing. In a period when the various mystery religions offered to its devotees a sense of personal attachment to a particular deity, Asclepius was preeminently defined by his strong attention to the individual.27 And as the various testimonies reveal, Asclepius appears again and again as a deity who was particularly characterized by his compassion and beneficence towards humanity.28

23 Plutarch, De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos 1075E, Moralia, vol. 13 (trans. Harold Cherniss; London: Heinemann, 1976). 24 Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1051F, Moralia, vol. 13. 25 Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (New York: Routledge, 1999) 16. 26 Edelstein, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1998) 251 – 55. 27 Edelstein, Asclepius, 113. See also Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) 12. 28 Edelstein, Asclepius, 113. See also Lewis Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1921) 276: “Again, the type of Asclepius was a blend of two virtues: on the one hand, of the sov¸a, or deep wisdom, enriched by science, the traditional Hellenic ideal, an ideal which gives a unique value to their best religious thought, and on the other of philanthropy, or love of

Philanthropia as a Divine Virtue: The Testimonies of Asclepius

79

The Asclepius testimonies offer, therefore, valuable contextualization both for the vibrancy of the ideas of divine philanthropia in the imperial period and for Hebrews’ own preoccupation with the beneficent character of Christ. The qualities of compassion and beneficence that attended the deity Asclepius emerge clearly in this following passage from the Emperor Julian in the fourth century C.E. Although Julian’s infamous opposition to Christianity may render this statement somewhat tendentious, his assessment of the deity’s character seems typical in light of other similar testimonies to the god: Julianus, Epistulae, 78, 419B. Asclepius, again, does not heal mankind in the hope of repayment, but everywhere fulfills his own function of beneficence to mankind (oqd³ c±q b )sjkgpi¹r 1p’ !loib/r 1kp¸di to»r !mhq¾pour Q÷tai, !kk± t¹ oQje?om aqt` vikamhq¾peula pamtawoO pkgqoi).29

One finds a similar sentiment concerning Asclepius’ beneficent character in the context of a prayer dating from the second century. We should notice that although this text is much earlier than the text from Julian there appears nonetheless a very similar emphasis on Asclepius’ beneficence and compassion despite the wide separation of time. Aside from its earlier date, the text is also important since it preserves the prayer of a temple attendant who offers his gratitude to the deity for healing him. As such, the text affords us a valuable glimpse into an ordinary person’s worshipful stance towards the deity. Noteworthy also is the practical nature of the salvation requested by the attendant. This is consistent from what we see in other testimonies where Asclepius’ role of a savior rests essentially in his function of providing healing to the physical body.30 Inscriptiones Graecae, II, no. 4514 (2nd c. A.D.) I, a beloved temple attendant, say these things to you, Asclepius, son of Leto’s child. How shall I come to your golden abode, O blessed longed-for, divine head, since I do not have the feet with which I formerly came to the shrine, unless by healing me you graciously wish to lead me there again so that I may look upon you, my god, brighter than the earth in springtime. So I, Diophantus, pray you, save me T²de so· Diºvamtor 1pe¼wolai7 s_sºm le, most powerful and blessed one, by healing my painful gout: in the name of your father, to whom I offer earnest prayer. For no mortal man may give release from such sufferings. Only you, blessed divine one, have the power. mankind, which permeates their religion rarely and at a later time and with less force.” 29 Edelstein, Asclepius, 164. 30 Farnell, Greek Hero Cults, 279.

80

Chapter Four

For the gods who are eminent above all gave you to mortal men as a great gift, the compassionate one t¹m vikek¶loma, the deliverance from sufferings. Thrice -blessed Paeon Asclepius, by your skill Diophantus was healed of his painful incurable ailment; no longer does he appear crab-footed nor as if walking on cruel thorns, but sound of foot, just as you promised.31

Less personal testimonies also can be found. The following quote is from an author named Aelianus who was active around 200 C.E. In this text Aelianus thanks Asclepius for the deity’s providential provision of a plant called “southernwood,” which according to Aelianus aids in the removal of tapeworms. Aelianus confidently calls Asclepius “most man-loving” of all the deities. Aelianus, De Natura Animalium, IX, 33 …Not in any way whatsoever, O Asclepius, King and most man-loving vikamhqypºtate of the gods, do I match the southernwood against your wisdom. May I not be so rash as that. But when it came up, I was reminded of your benefits and your astounding cure. So also the plant is your gift, and one must not doubt it.32

In yet another passage from Aelianus the quality of gentleness is specifically connected to Asclepius: Aelianus, De Natura Animalium, VIII, 12 The Pareias or Parousas (for thus Appolodorus {the author on poisons, ca. 300 B.C.}says is yellowish-red in color, sharp of vision, has a flat mouth and is not likely to sting, but rather gentle. Wherefore those who first searched out these facts made it sacred to the most man-loving vikamhqypot²t\ of the gods and said it was the servant of Asclepius.33

There are several important testimonies which date from the mid second century by the orator Aelius Aristides (120 – 189 C.E.). In the following speech Aristides engages in an extended encomium of Asclepius in which he describes the god as the abiding helper and benefactor of humanity. Patent in the speech are the notes of supreme praise, thanksgiving, and gratitude lavished upon the deity: Aristides, Oratio XLII, 1 – 15 The god having all powers has chosen to be men’s benefactor in every respect, granting every one that which is his due. The greatest and most common benefit, however, he bestowed upon all by making their race immortal through succession, by means of health bringing about marriage and the begetting of children and the procurement of the resources of 31 Edelstein, Asclepius, 241 – 42. 32 Edelstein, Asclepius, 220 – 221. 33 Edelstein, Asclepius, 365.

Philanthropia as a Divine Virtue: The Testimonies of Asclepius

81

nourishment…Furthermore he established places of treatment in their midst, and he took it upon himself to pursue his art night and day in order to bring cheer to whoever always are and will be in need of it…To me, O Lord Asclepius, many and various things indeed, as I have said before, have come from you and your love of men ja· t/r s/r vikamhqyp¸ar, the greatest of all, however, and that which deserves the highest gratitude, and I think is the most suitable one, are my speeches.34

This next text is especially important since it reveals evidence from the first century of a song or hymn to Asclepius. As in the previous speech from Aristides, we see in this witness an extended speech of praise for the deity. Although the noun philanthopia and its cognates does not formerly appear in the hymn, we do see the familiar conviction in Asclepius’ beneficent character as expressed in the description of the god as “kindly” to humanity: Inscriptiones Graecae, II, no. 4473 (1st c. A.D.) To the Delian, the far-darter with the beautiful quiver…with gladsome heart sing praises, O Athenian youths,…hail, Paean, bearing in your hands a suppliant olive branch…blameless song for ever…famous…Whom once upon a time his mother bore as a defender from illness and a healer of pain, Asclepius, gladsome youth. Him the centaur taught, along the ridges of Pelion, the skill and wisdom that safeguard men from pain, the son of Cronis, kindly to men Epiom !mdq²si, most august of the demigods.35

Here is another example of speech by Aristides which concerns the beauty of a particular well of water in a temple of Asclepius. As in the previous testimonies the character of the deity as beneficent is stressed: Aristides, Oratio XXXIX, 1 – 18 …What, then, should be the beginning (of our speech), or, just as when we drink from the well, raising the cup to the lips we never stop again, but pour in the liquid all at once, so too should our speech say everything all at once? Instead of the approach to the lip, let this be our starting point: that the well is in the fairest spot on earth…In regard, then, to that which the god who is the gentlest and most man loving vikamhqypºtator of the gods, decided to prefer, how is it possible for us, particularly those of us who are his servants, to say anything except that this is the best? 36

The following hymn found at Pergamum, and which has been attributed to Aristides, conveys well the sense of the deity’s attention for the well being of humanity in the practical affairs of life: 34 Edelstein, Asclepius, 155 – 62. 35 Edelstein, Asclepius, 329. 36 Edelstein, Asclepius, 410.

82

Chapter Four

Inscriptio Pergamena (Berl. Sitzber., 1934, pp. 753 ff) Savior…Summoned night and day, you came to me when I was distressed in heart by painful illness. On the sea you kindly protected me, and you never let me be overcome by baneful calamities, but you conducted me safely when you steered my ship to Delos, smoothing the Aegean swell. Again, you rescued the shipwrecked when you made the waves in a powerful eddy rise under my little boat. You calmed the winds when the gale raged against men and surrounded them with the grim destiny of death. You saved them from the glaring heat and from the currents of the wintery rivers and from the violence of the wind…In gratitude for these kindnesses I revere and respect your name, Savior.37

The following brief hymn, again from Aristides, praises the function of Asclepius as an averter of death. The hymn is important for two reasons. First, with its mention of school children we may perhaps discern a perception of Asclepius among ordinary people. Second, this song can suggestively be compared to Hebrews 2:15 where, as we have already seen, Christ is also described as rescuing the faithful from the fear of death. Aristides, Oratio XLIX, 4 …they (sc., the school children) read and sang the following words, responding sweetly: “From sharp-sighted death he rescued many who had advanced right to the fates of Hades whence none return.” These are some lines of mine, almost the first that I composed to the God.38

In the following inscription the gentle character of Asclepius is again emphasized: Epigrammata Graecae, 1027 (Kaibel; 2nd-3rd c. A.D.) Wake, Paeon Asclepius, lord of men, gentle-minded child Apiºvym pa? of the son of Leto and noble Coronis, dispersing sleep from your eyes, heed the prayers of your worshippers who, rejoicing greatly, propitiate your prime power, Health, gentle-minded Asclepius Apiºvym )sjkgpi³; wake and be pleased to give ear to your hymn, you whom we invoke with the cry “Hail”.39

The expectation of the very practical forms of salvation Asclepius could offer is well attested in the Orphic Hymns, circa 3rd century: Orphei Hymni, LXVII Healer of all, Asclepius, Lord Paean, softening the painful sufferings of men’s diseases, giver of gentle gifts, mighty one, may you come bringing health and checking illnesses and the harsh fate of death. O youth who promote growth 37 Edelstein, Asclepius, 332. 38 Edelstein, Asclepius, 332 – 333. 39 Edelstein, Asclepius, 333.

A Precedent for Hebrews Beneficent Portrait of Christ

83

and ward off evil, youth of happy fate, mighty scion of Phoebus Apollo, splendidly honored, enemy of diseases, having as your wife faultless Hygieia, come blessed one, savior, granting a good end to life.40

The next text is from a papyrus which bears certain suggestive resonances with Hebrews: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus XI, 1381 (2nd century A.D.) When I too afterwards was suddenly seized with a pain in my right side, I quickly hastened to the helper of the human race …taw»r 1p· t¹m bogh¹m t/r !mhqyp¸mgr ¦qlgsa v¼seyr, and he, being again disposed to pity 5keom, listened to me, and displayed still more effectively his peculiar clemency, which, as I am intending to recount his terrible powers, I will substantiate.41

Patent in this text is a portrait of Asclepius as a deity who is disposed to help humanity in times of distress. According to Hebrews 4:16, the faithful are also able to receive through Christ grace and mercy 5keom in times of need bo¶heiam. We might also recall here Hebrews 2:18, where Christ is said to give his assistance bogh/sai to those who are experiencing testing. In bringing forward these testimonies concerning the philanthropia of Asclepius it is not my intention to argue for hard and fast parallels with the Christology of Hebrews. Rather, such testimonies serve as suggestive evidence for how in the imperial period ideas of divine beneficence were certainly available and may perhaps have influenced our author’s distinctive portrait of Christ as a compassionate and beneficent deity for his people. As we saw in the case of reflection connected to Heracles, what emerges in the testimonies concerning Asclepius is a preoccupation with the deity’s beneficent and almost personal commitment to humanity. And as we observed in the previous chapter, this same concern to reflect on divine beneficence is also a hallmark of Hebrews’ presentation of Christ.

Philo and Philanthropia: A Precedent for Hebrews’ Beneficent Portrait of Christ To this day, Philo’s reflections on philanthropia remain an unexamined resource for an assessment of the themes and concepts that may have influenced the Christology of Hebrews, in particular Hebrews’ benef40 Edelstein, Asclepius, 334 – 35. 41 Edelstein, Asclepius, 174.

84

Chapter Four

icent portrait of Christ. The fact that Philo devotes the longest chapter in his treatise De virtutibus to the topic of philanthropia, and moreover calls philanthropia one of the queens of the virtues (De virtutibus 95), only underscores the importance that the topic of philanthropia held in first century C.E. Hellenistic-Judaism.42 Philo’s application of the conceptual category of philanthropia, however, is a complex one, since he can apply this term to a number of different topics. For example, in company with Josephus, Philo employs the term apologetically when he argues that the Jewish Law promotes gentleness and kind behavior toward humanity and even animals.43 In a similarly apologetic mode, Philo can also use the term to reflect more universally on the benevolent character of the Jewish people as a whole.44 In this study we will concentrate on two of the most important and prevalent aspects of Philo’s usage of philanthropia: 1) philanthropia as descriptive of God’s activity and disposition towards humanity and 2) Philo’s distinctive characterization of Moses as a model of philanthropia. In a somewhat eclectic fashion, Philo can sometimes combine the idea of philanthropia as a defining attribute of the deity with the distinctive Hellenistic ideal of the king motivated by philanthropia for his subjects. For example, in De cherubim 97 – 101, Philo depicts God as a king, who in his intelligible divinity only enters that human soul, which has proved itself a worthy receptacle through the cultivation of virtue and education. Philo expresses this descent of God to the soul in language redolent with the themes of divine beneficence and solicitude: What house shall be prepared for God the king of kings, the Lord of all, who in His tender mercy and loving-kindness vikamhqyp¸am has deigned to visit created being !ni¾samti t¹ cemgt¹m 1pisj´xeyr and come down from the boundaries of heaven to the utmost ends of earth, to show his goodness to our race? 45

It is interesting to compare this passage, with its image of a beneficent deity visiting 1pisj´xeyr humanity, with that passage from Hebrews which describes the incarnation of the Son beginning in 2:14: “Therefore since the children have shared in blood and flesh, so he himself in just the same way participated in the same things….” (Heb 2:14) This is not to suggest that there exists a direct parallel between these two very 42 43 44 45

Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings,” 182. Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings,” 180. Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings,” 184 – 85. Philo, De cherubim 98

A Precedent for Hebrews Beneficent Portrait of Christ

85

different passages. The conceptual framework at work in the passage quoted from Philo is essentially that of the contemplative life, wherein the soul opens itself to the reception of the vision of God through virtue. Such a contemplative ideal is completely absent in Hebrews. Moreover, Hebrews’ emphasis upon the actual physical incarnation of Christ in 2:14ff is actually in contrast to Philo’s overarching intention, which is to comment upon the human soul as the fitting immaterial receptacle for the immaterial presence of God.46 Nonetheless, I would say that there exists a compatibility between the two passages that I think is important to consider, since in both we see the image and metaphor of God descending to humanity. More specificalls, in the passage from De cherubim the descent of the deity is depicted as an immaterial descent driven by an underlying contemplative ideal. In the case of Hebrews, by contrast, the author describes an actual physical meeting between the Son and humanity. However, both passages are claiming the same motivation for God’s descending to humanity, which is the divine care and concern. The verb Philo employs to comment upon this meeting is 1pisj´xeyr, which the Loeb translators translate as “visit.” This verb also appears in Hebrews 2:6: 1pisj´pt, to reflect on God’s “remembering” or “taking care” for humanity within the larger context of the motif of Christ’s representative function in relation to humanity. My point here is simply that Philo can conceive of this meeting between God and the human soul in terms of the category of philanthropia. For Philo, this descent of God to the virtuous soul demonstrates above all else the character of the deity as loving and solicitous. Hebrews’ portrait of Christ as a Son who demonstrates a connection to humanity marked by the profoundest degree of solidarity would seem to suggest something of the same philanthropic cast. Philo similarly links the philanthropia of God with the royal image of a king in this passage from De plantatione 91 – 92: What soul, in fact, would imagine that the Master and Sovereign of the Universe, without undergoing any change in His own nature, but remaining as he is, is kind continuously and bountiful incessantly….It is a strong bulwark of cheerfulness of spirit and freedom from danger to have reposed our confidence in a King who is not urged by the greatness of His dominion

46 See De cherubim 99 – 100.

86

Chapter Four

to inflict injuries on His subjects, but whose love for man vikamhqyp¸ô makes it His delight to supply what is lacking to each one.47

The premise informing this passage centers on Philo’s astonishment that the supremacy that characterizes God’s nature does not preclude the expression of divine kindness towards humanity. This passage may suggestively be compared with Hebrews 4:14: Therefore since we have such a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to the confession. For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in every way in quite the same manner, except for sin. Therefore let us draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, so that we might obtain mercy and find grace at the time of need (=womter owm !qwieq´a l´cam diekgkuhºta to»r oqqamo¼r, YgsoOm t¹m uR¹m toO heoO, jqat_lem t/r blokoc¸ar. oq c±q 5wolem !qwieq´a lµ dum²lemom sulpah/sai ta?r !sheme¸air Bl_m, pepeiqasl´mom d³ jat± p²mta jah’ bloiºtgta wyq·r "laqt¸ar. pqoseqw¾leha owm let± paqqgs¸ar t` hqºm\ t/r w²qitor, Vma k²bylem 5keor ja· w²qim evqylem eQr eujaiqom bo¶heiam).

Once again, the similarities between these two passages are noteworthy in terms of their characterization of the deity. First, Philo praises the immutable majesty of God, who is nonetheless unstinting with respect to generosity towards humanity. In a similar fashion, the author of Hebrews praises Jesus as the Son of God who, despite having passed through the heavens, is nonetheless able to sympathize sulpah/sai with human frailty. Second, Philo sees it as a great confidence that God looks after human needs. Similarly, the author of Hebrews calls for the community to draw near with confidence so that God might aid them in time of need eQr eujaiqom bo¶heiam. While the term philanthropia is only explicitly stated in the passage from Philo, the language of divine beneficence and love for humanity is common to both. This suggests that a philanthropic presentation of Christ may well be operative in the passage from Hebrews as well. On this note, the category of philanthropia is particularly evident in 4:15, where the author emphasizes both Christ’s sympathy for human weakness and his essential solidarity with humanity forged through a similar kind of testing. This bond remains despite the author’s avowal of Christ’s sinlessness: …pepeiqasl´mom d³ jat± jah’ bloiºtgta wyq·r "laqt¸ar.

47 Philo, De plantatione 91 – 92 vol. 3 (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; London: Heinemann, 1930).

A Precedent for Hebrews Beneficent Portrait of Christ

87

Apart from these examples where the Hellenistic ideal of kingship is prominent, Philo customarily employs philanthropia in a more decidedly religious sense. In keeping with what we have already observed, Philo usually connects the philanthropia of God in these passages with the contemplative ideal. Thus in the following passage from De Abrahamo, Philo employs the term philanthropia in order to describe what happens to Abraham after he turns away from the things of sense and receives the vision of God: …And this his mind then saw for the first time with its recovered sight. For before a great mist had been shed upon it by the things of sense, and only with difficulty could it dispel this mist under the warmth and fervor of higher verities and so be able as in clear open sky to receive the vision of Him Who so long lay hidden and invisible. He in His Love for mankind vikamhqyp¸ar, when the soul came into His presence, did not turn away His face, but came forward to meet him and revealed His nature, so far as the beholder’s power of sight allowed.48

In the following passage from De somnis, Philo grounds the contemplative vision within the larger context of divine agency by reflecting on how God, out of love for humanity, aids the soul in its apprehension of divine reality: …for neither does God nor does a divine Word cause harm, but condescending out of love for man vikamhqyp¸am and compassion for our race, to be helpers and comrades, that with the healing of their breath they may quicken into new life the soul which is still borne along in the body as in a river.49

In this next passage from the De vita Mosis, Philo links philanthropia with God’s providential care for Israel during the travail of their wilderness wandering: …God, moved partly by the clemency and benevolence to man vikamhqyp¸am which belongs to His nature, partly too by His wish to honour the ruler whom He had appointed, and still more to bring home to them the greatness of that ruler’s piety and holiness as shewn in matters both clear and obscure, took pity on them and healed their sufferings.50

48 Philo, De Abrahamo, 78 – 79, vol. 6 (trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker; London: Heinemann, 1935). 49 Philo, De somnis I.147, vol. 5 (trans. F. H. Colson; London: Heinemann, 1934). 50 Philo, De vita Mosis I. 198, vol. 6 (trans. F. H. Colson; London: Heinemann, 1935).

88

Chapter Four

In this final example, philanthropia appears as a clear epithet for God within the larger context of the farewell benedictions given by Moses to the twelve tribes: …That these benedictions will be fulfilled we must believe, for he who gave them was beloved of God the lover of men b te he¹r vik²mhqypor and they for whom he asked were of noble lineage and held the highest rank in the army led by the Maker and Father of all.51

This last quote explicitly introduces the figure of Moses in connection with philanthropia. The esteem in which Moses was held in Hellenistic Judaism is evident in a number of Philo’s writings, particularly in the De vita Mosis, where Moses appears as a model of the virtuous life in accordance with a sophos model.52 Peder Borgen points out, however, that in the context of the De virtutibus it is not Moses’ wisdom that is emphasized but rather his philanthropia:53 De virtutibus 175 Our most holy Moses, who so dearly loved virtue and goodness and especially his fellow-men diaveqºmtyr vik²mhqypor, exhorts everyone everywhere to pursue piety eqsebe¸ar and justice, and offers to the repentant in honour of their victory the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealths and of the felicities both great and small which that membership confers.54 De virtutibus 80 We have stated the proofs of the legislator’s humanity vikamhqyp¸ar and fellow feeling, a quality which he possessed through a happy gift of natural goodness, and also as the outcome of the lessons which he learnt from the holy oracles.55 De virtutibus 66 Here we have the first proof of the kindness vikamhqyp¸ar and faithfulness, which he showed to all his compatriots, but there is another not inferior to it. When his disciple, Joshua, who modeled himself on his master’s characteristics with the love which they deserved, had been approved by divine judgment as best fitted to command, Moses was not depressed as another might have been because the choice had not fallen on his sons or nephews, but was filled with intense joy, to think that the nation would be in the 51 Philo, De Virtutibus, 77, vol. 8 (trans. F. H. Colson; London: Heinemann, 1939). 52 See De vita Mosis I 25 – 26; see also: Leg. all. 2:87, 93; 3:45, 131. Integral to this sophos model is the portrait of the hero as one who has control of his passions; see Veldhuizen, “Moses, a Model of Hellenistic Philanthropia,” 217. 53 Peder Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings,” 177. 54 Philo, De virtutibus, 175. 55 Philo, De virtutibus, 80.

A Precedent for Hebrews Beneficent Portrait of Christ

89

charge of one excelling in every way, since he knew that one in whom God is well pleased must needs be of noble character.56

The first quote from De virtutibus 175 shows the interesting phenomenon of how Philo connects the philanthropia of Moses with the idea of piety, which for Philo denotes the sense of holiness conceived of as an abiding love for God.57 The connection occurs elsewhere in the text as a general principle:58 The next subject to be examined is humanity vikamhqyp¸am, the virtue closest akin to piety eqsebe¸ar, its sister and its twin. The prophetic legislator who perhaps loved her more than anyone else has done, since he knew that she was a high road leading to holiness, used to incite and train all his subjects to fellowship, setting before them the monument of his own life like an original design to be their beautiful model.59

Philanthropia and piety are linked elsewhere too, as we see in the following two examples from the De specialibus legibus. and De decalogo, respectively: De specialibus legibus 97 What then is the lesson which he takes as his first step? Two things stand out in importance, food and drink; to neither of these did he give full liberty but bridles them with ordinances most conducive to self-restraint and humanity vikamhqyp¸am and what is chief of all, piety eqs´beiam.60 De decalogo 108 – 110 Now we have known some who associate themselves with one of the two sides and are seen to neglect the other. They have drunk of the unmixed wine of pious aspirations t¹m eqsebe¸ar pºhom and turning their backs upon all other concerns devoted their personal life wholly to the service of God. Others conceiving the idea that there is no good outside doing justice to men have no heart for anything but companionship with men. In their desire for fellowship they supply to all for their use, and deem it their duty to alleviate by anything in their power the dreaded hardships. These may be justly called lovers of men to¼tour l³m owm vikamhq¾pour, the former sort lovers of God. Both come halfway in virtue; they only have it whole who win honour in both departments.61

56 Philo, De virtutibus, 66. 57 David Winston, “Philo’s Ethical Theory,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rçmischen Welt II (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984) 395. 58 Peder Borgen, “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings,” 184. 59 Philo, De virtutibus, 51. 60 Philo, De specialibus legibus. 97 61 Philo, De decalogo 108 – 110

90

Chapter Four

At the heart of this latter passage is a dialectic depicting service toward humanity, conceived as philanthropia, and service before God, conceived as piety eqs´beia. For Philo, both virtues are requisite and complement the other. It is interesting to compare this passage’s wedding of the virtues piety and philanthropia with the following passage from Hebrews 5:1 – 8 where the idea of piety also comes into play.62 Who in the days of his flesh after having offered up prayers and entreaties with a loud cry and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered (dr 1m ta?r Bl´qair t/r saqj¹r aqtoO de¶seir te ja· Rjetgq¸ar pq¹r t¹m dum²lemom s`feim aqt¹m 1j ham²tou let± jqauc/r Qswuq÷r ja· dajq¼ym pqosem´cjar ja· eQsajoushe·r !p¹ t/r eqkabe¸ar, ja¸peq £m uRºr, 5lahem !v’ ¨m 5pahem tµm rpojo¶m…)

An interpretive problem pertaining to this passage concerns what to make of the expression in verse 7: eQsajoushe·r !p¹ t/r eqkabe¸ar. Lane argues that the noun eqk²beia, which in the New Testament only occurs in Hebrews (Heb 5:7, 12:28), can mean either “fear,” “anxiety” or “reverence,” “piety.” If the noun is taken in the sense of “fear,” the preposition !p¹ suggests the idea that Christ was “heard” in the sense of being rescued from death. However, if the noun is taken to mean “reverence,” then the preposition takes on a causal sense suggesting that Christ was heard “because of” his reverence or piety.63 In support of the interpretation of the noun as “fear,” Attridge argues that eqk²beia denotes the basic idea of circumspection or caution.64 Attridge, however, goes on to amend this reading by admitting that the sense conveyed in terms of the overall context in Hebrews is one of awe before the majesty of God.65 Lane argues much the same by noting that the use of the noun in 12:28 along with the use of the participle eqkabghe¸r in 11:7 conveys the meaning, “attentiveness to the divine will.”66 Ellingworth builds upon such arguments by noting that the portrayal of Jesus learning obedience from what he suffered in verse 8 lends to the term eqk²beia the idea of reverence or piety in the specific sense of submission or obedience to God’s will.67 Indeed, Ellingworth’s insistence on the tone of obedience 62 Hebrews employs the noun eqk²beia instead of Philo’s eqs´beia. Both nouns can mean piety or reverence, however. 63 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 109. 64 Attridge, Hebrews, 151. 65 Attridge, Hebrews, 151 – 52 66 Lane, Hebrews, 1 – 8, 109. 67 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 290.

Hebrews’ Relationship to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism

91

integral to eqk²beia helps us to see what the reference to Christ being heard in verse 7 might mean. When we take the noun eqk²beia in the sense of reverence or piety we may then argue that Christ is heard not in the sense that he was rescued from death, but in the sense that he is rewarded for his obedience in his later exaltation.68 Of course, in contrast to Philo, Hebrews employs the term eqkabe¸ar in place of eqsebe¸ar to describe the idea of piety or reverence of Christ. But as we have seen it is difficult to make a hard and fast distinction between these two terms. While eqs´beia may carry a stronger sense of reverence before the deity, both terms can suggest the notion or reverence and piety before the deity.69 Thus, on a certain level the dialectic that we see in Philo between the virtues of philanthropia and piety is also present in this passage from Hebrews. The notion of philanthropia is present in the idea of Christ’s radical solidarity with humanity and his full identification with them in suffering and death. The notion of piety, on the other hand, is present in the larger divine context within which Christ’s suffering takes place, namely, Christ’s obedient and reverent submission to God’s will as referenced by the term eqkabe¸ar in verse 7.70 The parallelism between the passages from Hebrews and Philo is of course not a hard and fast one, but one that functions primarily on the level of theological suggestiveness. Whereas Philo explicitly links philanthropia and piety, Hebrews reflects on Christ’s piety through a largely tacit philanthropic Christology governed by the motif of Christ’s radical solidarity with humanity in his suffering. We will return to this passage again in the next chapter where we will address the role of Christ’s perfection in relation to his status as High Priest.

Hebrews’ Relationship to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism William Lane has argued persuasively that the setting of Hebrews is likely that of an independent house church influenced by the conceptual legacy of Hellenistic-Judaism.71 According to Lane, this environment is reflected in a number of key areas: 1) the ease with which Hebrews applies to 68 Attridge, Hebrews, 150. See also J. Jeremias “Heb 5, 7 – 10,” ZNW 44 (1952 – 53): 109 – 10 69 Liddell and Scott Greek English Lexicon, 327 & 332. 70 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 290. 71 Lane, Hebrews, 1 – 8, liii.

92

Chapter Four

Christ attributes typically associated with divine wisdom (Heb 1:2 – 3) as articulated in the Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition; 2) Hebrews’ appropriation of the conviction widespread in Hellenistic-Judaism that angels were present as mediators of the Torah (Heb 2:2); 3) the epistle’s pronounced preoccupation with the figure of Moses, who was an enormously esteemed figure in Hellenistic-Judaism (Heb 3:2, 3, 5, 16; 7:14; 8:5; 9:19; 10:28; 11:23 – 24; 12:21); 4) the author’s profound facility with the Greek Scriptures, which suggests a community thoroughly acquainted with the vocabulary and narratives of Scripture as mediated through the Septuagint.72 In light of this probable setting, Philo’s handling of the theme of philanthropia raises the complex question of Hebrews’ relationship to Philo and more generally to the strand of Hellenistic-Judaism represented by him. A number of contemporary scholars believe that such a connection likely exists, if only in terms of a shared cultural milieu.73 Proposals, however, as to the precise tenor of this relationship have often provoked extreme positions on both sides. For example, after examining instances of similar vocabulary and style of argumentation in Hebrews and Philo, Ceslas Spicq argued, though not without some reservation, for a clear connection linking the author of Hebrews with Philo.74 However, in a study equally as influential, Ronald Williamson meticulously refuted the findings of Spicq and denied the existence of any substantial link between Hebrews and Philo.75 One of the more important aspects of the contemporary debate hinges upon the question of whether the author of Hebrews has crafted his Christology in light of a platonizing framework; a framework mediated either through Philo’s writings, or perhaps more generally, through a strand of Judaism influenced by Alexandrian thought.76 For 72 Lane, Hebrews, 1 – 8, liv-lv. 73 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78. See also Attridge, Hebrews, 29. 74 Spicq, L’ ptre de Hbreux, vol. 1, 39 – 91. “Tel est exactement le cas des rapports les plus profonds entre Philon et l’ Épître aux Hébreux. Au delà des mots, des métaphores, du style, des exégèses, des idées, nos deux auteurs ont des affinités de mentalité tout à fait singulières et comme la même….Certes, la doctrine de Hbr. est avant tout et totalement évangélique; mais l’homme demeure sous le chrétian; la structure de l’esprit, les démarches propres de la penseé ne sont pas modifiées par la lumière de foi,” 91 75 Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970). 76 David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78. See also Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 207.

Hebrews’ Relationship to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism

93

example, the fundamental Platonic conception of intelligible immaterial reality as opposed to the realm of sensible reality77 is evident in Philo’s De opificio mundi 26 – 41. In these passages, Philo argues that the two creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 refer respectively to the ideal, immaterial creation on the one hand, and the sensible material creation on the other.78 The test case for scholars who argue for a modified Platonism at work in Hebrews is undoubtedly Hebrews 8:1 – 5, with its depiction of Christ serving in the heavenly sanctuary fashioned by God and not human hands: The main point concerning what is being said is this: we have such a High Priest, who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven, a servant of the sanctuary and of the true tent which the Lord set up, not a man ( Jev²kaiom d³ 1pi to?r kecol´moir, toioOtom 5wolem !qwieq´a, dr 1j²hisem 1m deniø toO hqºmou t/r lecakys¼mgr 1m to?r oqqamo?r, t_m "c¸ym keitouqc¹r ja· t/r sjgm/r t/r !kghim/r, Fm 5pgnem b j¼qior, oqj %mhqypor) (Heb 8:1 – 2).

The mention of the heavenly sanctuary in verse 2 is further developed along purposefully contrastive lines in verse 5 with the depiction of the earthly sanctuary built by Moses according to the pattern revealed to him by God (Exodus 25:40). The opening line of verse 5 seems particularly amenable to a Platonic interpretation given its description of the levitical priests as those: oVtimer rpode¸clati ja· sjiø katqe¼ousim t_m 1pouqam¸ym. The terms, rpode¸clata and sjiø, frequently translated as “copy” and “shadow,” respectively (RSV, NEB), appear to suggest a “dualism” between the heavenly sanctuary and the material world.79 Indeed, Attridge believes that a Platonic model is clearly evident in Hebrews 8:1 – 5, and he points out that “although Philo does not use precisely the terminology of “shadow” or “copy” in his temple allegories, the contrast between ideal model and sensible copy is common in them“.80 77 See Erwin R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus 2nd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962) 97. 78 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: It’s Background of Thought (Cambridge: University Press, 1990) 9. 79 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 207. Lane argues, however, against any Platonic influence here. According to Lane, the distinction between the earthly and heavenly sanctuary is eschatological in nature; see p. 208. 80 Attridge, Hebrews, 219.

94

Chapter Four

Attridge’s comment reminds us that Philo does not employ the term rpºdeicla in his reflections on the tabernacle. For Philo, the sanctuary

built by Moses according to the immaterial forms conceived in the mind was a l¸lgla.81 According to Attridge, “Philo regularly uses paq²deicla for the noetic model and l¸lgla for the sensible copy.”82 Lincoln Hurst latches onto this fact and argues that rpode¸clati in Hebrews 8:5 is neither a characteristic word for Philo, nor does it mean copy.83 Rather, its basic meaning is that of a sample, suggestion, symbol, outline, token, or example.84 Indeed in those few instances where the word does occur in Philo (De conf. ling. 64; Quis rer. 256; De Somnis II.3; De post.C. 122) it frequently denotes a moral example to be imitated, as it does in Hebrews 4:11.85 Hurst further argues that the Philonic/Platonic is readily and erroneously bolstered by reading rpode¸clati in conjunction with sjiø, a term that certainly does bear the notion of a “shadow,” and as such can convey the philosophical notion of the shadowy realm of the phenomenal, material world.86 In place of a Philonic/Platonic interpretation, Hurst proposes that rpode¸clati in Hebrews 8:5 should be reinterpreted in a decidedly “architectural” fashion, i. e., as suggestive of the idea of a “pattern” or “sketch” that points beyond itself to a time of fulfillment in the future.87 Similarly sjiø denotes not so much a shadow in the philosophical sense of 81 Philo, Vita mosis II. 74. For a similar instance where l¸lgla is employed see Qoud Deterius Potiori insidiari solet. 160. Philo can also employ eQj¾m when reflecting on the sensible in relation to the intelligible: see De Ebrietate 132 – 33. Curiously, the author of Hebrews seems to employ eQjºma in 10:1 in a more positive sense to denote the full substance of the “good things to come.” See L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 20. 82 Attridge, Hebrews, 219. 83 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13. 84 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13. Reflecting this sense, the NRSV translates rpode¸clati as “sketch”. 85 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13. The word appears twice in Hebrews: 4:11 and 9:23. Hebrews 4:11 reads: (Spoud²sylem owm eQsekhe?m eQr 1je¸mgm tµm jat²pausim, Vma lµ 1m t` aqt` tir rpode¸clati p´s, t/r !peihe¸ar) “Therefore let us make every effort to enter into that rest so that no-one might stumble in that same example of disobedience.” Hebrews 9:23 reads: )m²cjg owm t± l³m rpode¸clata t_m 1m to?r oqqamo?r to¼toir jahaq¸feshai, aqt± d³ t± 1pouq²mia jqe¸ttosim hus¸air paq± ta¼tar) “Therefore it was necessary for the sketches of heavenly things to be cleansed by means of these, but the heavenly things themselves require better sacrifices than these.” 86 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 17. See also Attridge, Hebrews, 219. 87 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 16 – 17.

Hebrews’ Relationship to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism

95

something not fully real, but something transient and insubstantial.88 Employing the metaphor of a sculptor, Hurst argues that these terms express less a Platonic dualism than a conviction that all that came before was partial, while with the advent of Christ all that was in the past a mere sketch now attains fulfillment: “Such an interpretation would mean that the heavenly things do not cast their outline beneath them (the “Platonic” model), but that future events and entities cast their outline ahead of them (the “apocalyptic” model).“89 Hurst’s comments concerning “future events” raise the important matter of the distinctive way in which Hebrews handles Scripture. Unlike Philo, the author of Hebrews does not allegorically plumb the deeper spiritual meaning of the scriptural text; rather he consistently employs typology.90 William Lane makes much of this tendency and argues that the fundamental distinction between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries in 8:1 – 5 functions eschatologically and not ontologically, namely, the distinction “is not an expression of Alexandrian metaphysics, but the writer’s way of presenting the typological relation between the old and the new covenants. The relationship between the two sanctuaries is essentially a temporal one.”91 On Lane’s view, with the Son’s advent into history a new covenantal relationship emerges in which entrance before the presence of God in the heavenly sanctuary is made possible precisely through Christ’s sacrificial activity in history.92 From the typological perspective, then, the sacrificial activity of the levitical priests only anticipated the definitive sacrificial work of Christ.93 We see here in Hebrews a clear emphasis upon the significance of history, which is much more pronounced than in Philo.94 The contributions of Hurst and Lane reveal the difficulty of establishing any unambiguous connection between Philo and Hebrews. 88 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 17. 89 L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 16. 90 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78. See also Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 531. The Melchizadek episode is perhaps the one exception, where Hebrews does appear to be working with an allegorical understanding of the Melchizedek episode. See Lindars, Theology, 24. 91 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, cxxiii. 92 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 207. 93 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 207. 94 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 77. The importance of the historical dimension in Hebrews is well noted by Graham Hughes; see Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: University Press, 1979) 36.

96

Chapter Four

This is not to deny, of course, the presence of what appear to be significant points of contact, which frequently transcend the issue of whether or not Hebrews evinces a platonic framework. David Runia provides a balanced assessment in this regard. He notes a number of similar themes and emphases shared by both Philo and the author of Hebrews, correspondences which for Runia likely suggest some sort of indebtedness to Philo. These include: 1) similar eclectic vocabulary; a shared emphasis both on the figure of the high priest and of Moses; 2) a proclivity for dualistic language; 3) and in terms of exegetical method, a pronounced preference for writings stemming from the Pentateuch.95 Runia tempers such correspondences, however, by pointing out the quite distinctive manner in which Hebrews approaches these areas. For example, in Hebrews the hermeneutical approach to Scripture is couched in terms of typology, not allegory; similarly, the brand of dualism encountered is eschatological, and not ontological in character.96 Put most simply, Runia’s comments help us to remember that despite any parallels we might draw between Philo and Hebrews, it still remains the case that what is most distinctive about Philo is not what is most distinctive about Hebrews. For example, given Hebrews’ conviction that Christians now live at the end of the age (Heb 1:2 & 9:26), it is hardly surprising that we do not see an emphasis on the contemplative life of the soul that is such a distinctive element in many of Philo’s writings. As Runia notes at the conclusion of his study, despite the correspondences that can be found between Hebrews and Philo, their respective thought worlds are quite dissimilar.97 Whike it seems likely that the author of Hebrews was a hellenized Jew and that while certain formal similarities exist between Hebrews and Philo, it remains that the conceptual viewpoints of the authors are quite different. This suggests that any proposal concerning the relationship between Hebrews and Philo should be a modest one, i. e., one that assumes some type of connection between Hebrews and HellenisticJudaism, but one that also respects the distinctive viewpoint nurtured by our author’s Christian sensibilities. The conceptual category of philanthropia reveals a concept that was of obvious importance in Hellenistic-Judaism and that may have provided a 95 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 75 – 77. 96 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78. 97 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78. Nonetheless, Runia believes that the author of Hebrews was familiar with the “Philonic heritage,” 78.

Hebrews’ Relationship to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism

97

precedent for our author’s own beneficent portrait of Christ. We have had the opportunity to see how philanthropia is explicitly present in certain writings from Philo, and in our exegesis of Hebrews we have seen how a philanthropic portrait of Jesus seems to be implicitly at work in the context of Hebrews’ Christology. As we have seen from the selections above, a number of suggestive correspondences exist between Hebrews and Philo. And despite the different sensibilities and thought-worlds of these authors, we have discovered a mutual concern for describing the deity’s beneficence toward humanity. Indeed an advantage of the category of philanthropia, is that it establishes a connection between Hebrews and Philo that transcends some of the obvious differences we have noted above, differences such as the contrast between typology/ allegory and ontological dualism/eschatological dualism that are attendant upon the distinctive religious commitments of the Christian author of Hebrews and the Jewish philosopher Philo. With the concept of philanthropia we observe a category at once sophisticated and concrete. As such, it would be an appropriate category for both the sophisticated author of Hebrews and for a community of ordinary Christians, who undoubtedly would appreciate the portrait of a compassionate, loving savior who has drawn near to them out of divine love and who offers greater benefit than any other figure can.98

98 I am making a distinction here between a sophisticated audience and an audience comprised of the learned elite. While both the author of Hebrews and the addressees of the epistle may have been literate and even educated Christians well acquainted with the Septuagint, this does not necessarily imply that they were intellectual elites like Philo. The absence of a strong philosophical and contemplative cast to Hebrews I believe is telling.

CHAPTER FIVE High Priestly Christology and Divine Beneficence The second instance of the concept of the perfection of Jesus (Heb 5:9) occurs in the larger context of Hebrews 4:14 – 5:10. In this section Hebrews develops further the image of Christ as High Priest in preparation for the more extensive treatment Christ’s Priesthood that comprises the central section of the letter (7:1 – 10:18).1 The third and final instance of the concept of Christ’s perfection appears at 7:28, a verse that concludes the author’s important typological argument linking Christ and the enigmatic priestly figure of Melchizedek. In keeping with our author’s portrait of a beneficent and philanthropic Christ, we will explore in this chapter how Hebrews’ depiction of Christ’s high priestly activity lends itself to a Christology of divine beneficence through the following two motifs: the personal offering of Christ and inner renewal of the faithful. As we have already seen, the first indication of Christ’s status as priest occurs in Heb 2:17, a passage in which the author simply describes Christ as a “merciful” (1ke¶lym) and “faithful High Priest” (pist¹r !qwieqe¼r). The title of High Priest appears for a second time in 3:1 where, in the context of an exhortative passage, the author applies to Christ the dual appellation “the apostle and High Priest of our confession” (t¹m !pºstokom ja· !qwieq´a t/r blokoc¸ar Bl_m YgsoOm). In both these instances the title of High Priest for Christ appears as little more than a suggestive designation. Only in section 4:14 – 5:10 do we begin to see a more sustained reflection on the deeper significance of this priestly designation for Jesus. 1

See Pursiful, The Cultic Motif, 46; see also Attridge, Hebrews, 138; see Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation, 10. As Attridge notes, the unity of the section is marked by its essentially chiastic structure, where the function, qualifications, and authorization of the levitical high priest are applied to Christ in inverse order: see Attridge, Hebrews, 138. George Guthrie has noted that 4:14 – 16 and 10:19 – 23 serve as an extended inclusio for the central section of Hebrews dealing with the priesthood of Christ: see George Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Novum Testamentum Supplement Leiden: (E. J. Brill, 1994) 79.

High Priestly Christology and Divine Beneficence

99

Since the motif of Christ’s High Priestly status holds such a conspicuous position in the theological argument of Hebrews, it is crucial to explore how the beneficent Christology informs this priestly Christology in a demonstrable and meaningful way. Devoted solely to the motif of Christ’s High Priesthood, this chapter will explore how for the author of Hebrews the image of Christ as perfect High Priest brings into sharper focus the full dimension of Christ’s beneficent activity. Preliminary to such an assessment, however, is the question relating to the presence of priestly reflection at all in connection with Jesus. While a sacrificial assessment of the death of Jesus appears in various places in the New Testament, why does Hebrews, alone among the texts of the New Testament,2 choose to reflect upon Christ in specifically priestly categories? 3 Perhaps the simplest answer may lie in Hebrews’ use of Psalm 110.4 Early Christians widely employed Psalm 110 (109 Septuagint)—in particular, verse one—as a way of conceptualizing the resurrection of Jesus.5 Indeed, the ease with which the author simply alludes to Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1:3 clearly shows that he expects this royal psalm to be familiar to the readers.6 In its original context Psalm 110 functioned as a coronation psalm for the Jewish king. When early Christians applied the text to Jesus the notion of royal sovereignty naturally merged with the faith commitment in the transformed existence of the vindicated Christ.7 Noticing that the royal figure of the psalm is also designated as a priestly figure in verse 4, the author of Hebrews likely makes the innovative move of linking a priestly role to the royal status of Christ, which was already well established in the tradition.8 Since Hebrews takes considerable pains in the central section of the letter to clarify Christ as Priest in the likeness 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

David R. Anderson. The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews. Studies in Biblical Literature 21 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001) 237. Hebrews applies the title of high priest to Jesus a total of 10 times (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, 15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11. Direct citations as well as allusions to the psalm appear in Heb 1:3, 13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21; 10:12, 13. The complex use of Psalm 110 in Hebrews goes well beyond the scope of this study. See David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville, Abingdon, 1973). For more recent treatments see Kurianal, Jesus our High Priest; Anderson, King -Priest. Koester, Hebrews, 203. Issacs, Sacred Space, 180 Issacs, Sacred Space, 181. Koester, Hebrews, 203.

100

Chapter Five

of Melchizedek it seems likely that the readers were not familiar with this priestly innovation on the part of the author.9 Hence, the motivation on the part of our author to think of Jesus in priestly terms is likely a further example of the appropriation and re-evaluation of Jewish Scripture found throughout the epistle.10 Viewing this question from another perspective, one might also argue that the deeper catalyst for Hebrews’ priestly portrait was a sociological one. On this note, it should be remembered that first century Christian communities were to a significant degree on the outside of the larger culture looking in. Bereft of ancient origins, the early Christians comprised a community that lacked priests and temples, the discernible trappings of Greco-Roman religiosity. Such early communities did, however, have one possession: their hero Jesus, through whom they were convinced that God had spoken definitively (Heb 1:1). This was the same Jesus who was considered worthy of more honor than both the angels (Heb 1:4) and Moses (Heb 3:3), and whose Priesthood was superior to the levitical priesthood that came before (Heb 9:11 – 12). Such passages as these reveal not only the faith that certain Christians, like our author, had in Christ, but they suggest as well the self-consciousness of the faithful struggling both to define and to account for the narrative of their existence. In such a situation of self-consciousness with respect to identity and legitimacy, it is not surprising that the author of Hebrews might wish to present a portrait of Christ that was as noble and as distinguished as possible.11 And perhaps the image of the high priest served precisely such a function. Indeed, it is interesting to note that Philo describes the high priest as one who deals not only with the things of God, but as one who is eminently pious and virtuous–a very noble image.12 At the end of Philo’s description, the reader is left without any doubt concerning 9 David De Silva, Perserverance in Gratitude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 262; Hay, Glory, 144. 10 Attridge sees the origin of high priestly reflection for Jesus as having some kind of relation to Jewish ideas concerning angelic priestly mediators. While this is certainly possible, even Attridge admits that particular development of the high priestly theme in Hebrews goes in an entirely different direction. See Attridge, Hebrews, 97 – 103. 11 Hebrews celebrates the holy stature of Jesus in 7:26. Similarly, The Jewish High Priest represented the pinnacle of human holiness See Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 21 – 22. 12 see De vita Mosis I. 66 – 70.

High Priestly Christology and Divine Beneficence

101

the high priest’s impressive and almost superhuman stature. Indeed, even in the context of Greek religion, where the priesthood was an honorary office and not an established caste, the priest nonetheless possessed an extremely prestigious authority and was esteemed as deserving the highest reverence and respect.13 One might also note the common practice among Roman emperors to assume the tile of Pontifex Maximus. 14 Perhaps such an estimation of the supreme stature and nobility of the priesthood comprised at least one of the undoubtedly many factors that prompted our author to reflect on Christ in such priestly terms. Vanhoye sees the impetus for Hebrews’ priestly reflection as stemming from Hebrews concern for theological validation. Vanhoye contends that since for the author of Hebrews Christ fulfills the old covenant, it necessarily follows that Christ should also fulfill the crucial role of mediating God to the people, a mediation that was the essential task of the Jewish high priest.15 According to Vanhoye, Christ could not perfectly fulfill God’s designs unless he was a Son who established a relationship between God and the people.16 I would simply build upon Vanhoye’s argument here and suggest that Hebrews’ distinctive priestly image of Christ as both Priest and victim may help us see better where this element of validation comes into play. For the author and his community a human high priest is no longer needed to mediate the divine to humanity since in the last of these days (Heb 1:2) the divine Son has given himself to accomplish such mediation. Since the community has such a hero in Christ, a Son who is both victim and Priest, they therefore have no need of human priests to connect them to God. They have all they need in Christ, who intercedes for them forever in heaven before the presence of God (Heb 9:24). Just such an estimation of the Son’s pre-eminent status seems to be the meaning suggested in a passage like Hebrews 9:13, where the author specifically contrasts the blood of sacrificial animals with the far superior blood of Jesus, who personally offered himself to God. Whatever the specific antecedents may have been for Hebrews’ priestly portrayal of Jesus the more pressing question concerns how the 13 Burkert, Greek Religion, 95 – 98. 14 Koester, Hebrews, 187. 15 Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Subsidia Biblica 12. Rome, 1989) 14 – 16. See also Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 22. 16 Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 59.

102

Chapter Five

author of Hebrews develops this priestly Christology, which is certainly a hallmark of the letter. In keeping with what we have already seen of the author’s portrait of a close and present philanthropic Christ, I propose to explore the manner in which the image of Christ’s High Priestly activity lends itself to a Christology of divine beneficence through the following two motifs: the personal offering of Christ and inner renewal of the faithful, two motifs that I hope to show are the defining ideas integral to that section of Hebrews beginning in 7:28 and extending through 10:22.

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence Hebrews 4:14 functions as the introductory statement to the section the letter comprised by 4:14 – 5:10: Therefore since we have such a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to the confession. For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in every way, in quite the same manner, except for sin. Therefore let us draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, so that we might obtain mercy and find grace at the time of need (=womter owm !qwieq´a l´cam diekgkuhºta to»r oqqamo¼r,YgsoOm t¹m uR¹m toO heoO, jqat_lem t/r blokoc¸ar. oq c±q 5wolem !qwieq´a lµ dum²lemom sulpah/sai ta?r !sheme¸air Bl_m, pepeiqasl´mom d³ jat± p²mta jah’ bloiºtgta wyq·r "laqt¸ar. pqoseqw¾leha owm let± paqqgs¸ar t` hqºm\ t/r w²qitor, Vma k²bylem 5keor ja· w²qim evqylem eQr eujaiqom bo¶heiam).

In keeping with what we have seen of the epistle’s triumphant tone, Hebrews 4:14 commences with a celebratory statement affirming Christ’s present attainment of glory: “Therefore, since we have such a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens ( !qwieq´a l´cam diekgkuhºta to»r oqqamo¼r), Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to the confession.” The reference to Christ having passed through the heavens hints at earlier references in the letter to Christ’s exaltation (Heb 1:3, 13). The reference to Christ’s glorification might also suggest, as some scholars have argued, an implied polemic against the Day of Atonement ritual as described in Leviticus 16. According to this view, unlike the levitical high priest who passes through a mere curtain or veil to stand before the invisible presence of God (Lev 16:11 – 15), Christ the “great”

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence

103

(l´cam) High Priest has passed through heaven itself to encounter God in a more intimately direct fashion (see Heb 9:24).17 Implicit to this argument is the assessment that on the basis of his exaltation Christ’s proximity to the divine presence transcends the proximity to the divine experienced by the levitical high priest. Whatever one makes of this particular reading, it seems clear that Hebrews 4:14 functions to underscore the transcendent status of Christ, as well as the ineffable intimacy Christ shares with God as a result of exaltation. As such, the introduction to this section lends considerable incentive to the concluding exhortation, which calls for the faithful to hold fast to their confession. In verse 15, a decidedly more immanent portrait of Christ emerges by virtue of the author’s insistence that Christ is a Priest who is not unable to “sympathize” (sulpah/sai) with human weaknesses. Just as we saw in our analysis of the various Christological emphases at work in Hebrews 2:5 – 18, so here we observe a clear emphasis upon Christ’s supreme solidarity with humanity.18 The human “weaknesses” (ta?r !sheme¸air) in view are couched as comprehensively as possible, but likely refer to moral and intellectual weaknesses that lead to sin.19 The author heightens the prevailing theme of Christ’s intimacy and solidarity with humanity with an emphatic expression addressing Christ’s deep participation in the human sphere: “…he has been tested in every way, in quite the same manner, except for sin.” (pepeiqasl´mom d³ jat± p²mta jah’ bloiºtgta wyq·r "laqt¸ar). The almost parenthetical comment as to Christ’s sinlessness (wyq·r "laqt¸ar) is a highly traditional assessment,20 which nonetheless ties together well the notions of immanent solidarity and transcendent status that the author desires to hold together in his portrait of Christ. This comment concerning Christ’s sinlessness is a foregone conclusion for the author and indeed anticipates the characterization of the Son in 7:26 as a High Priest who is “holy” (fsior), “blameless” (%jajor), “undefiled” ( !l¸amtor), and “separted from sinners” ( jewyqisl´mor !p¹ t_m "laqtyk_m).

17 F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 115; see also Moffatt, Hebrews, 58. 18 Albert Vanhoye, Our Priest is Christ: The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Supplment Vie chrtienne 118. trans. Sister M. Innocentia Richards (Paris, 1969) 30 – 31. 19 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 268. 20 Attridge, Hebrews, 140 – 41.

104

Chapter Five

Viewed as a whole, verse 15 is dominated by the strong assertion–signaled by the double negative (oq…l¶) 21–that the faithful have in Christ a High Priest who is characterized first and foremost by his compassion or sympathy for them:22 oq c±q 5wolem !qwieq´a lµ dum²lemom sulpah/sai ta?r !sheme¸air Bl_m. As William Lane argues, the avowal of sympathy here extends beyond any merely passive sense suggestive of compassion, and enters into a more dynamic understanding: Christ is “sympathetic” in the sense that he is present to help his people in a very active way;23 indeed, as we see more clearly in the next verse, divine help is available to be received by the faithful at any appropriate time of need (Heb 4:16). This explicit link between Christ’s status as a High Priest on the one hand, and his sympathetic stance in relation to the faithful on the other, highlights once more the preoccupation of the author with delineating Christ’s character as deeply beneficent and philanthropic. In the space of just two verses, the author has struck a highly celebratory christological chord: in Christ the faithful possess a High Priest who, despite his exalted status, is actively present to his people’s very real needs and concerns (see also Heb 2:18).24 As High Priest, then, Christ is not simply merciful (2:17); he is also actively sympathetic to his people’s needs (4:15). By prefacing the priestly portrait of Christ under the immediate rubric of sympathy, the author thereby continues to shape his Christology in a manner that emphasizes the divine love or philanthropia of Christ for his faithful. And while it is true that the author will later emphasize other characteristics of Christ’s Priesthood, such as its eternal status (7:24), it is crucial to see that Christ’s mercy (2:17) and sympathy (4:15) are the first qualities that the author designates as constitutive of Christ’s Priesthood. This suggests that Christ’s Priesthood is marked above all else by its personal commitment and connection to the faithful. Such a clear philanthropic and benevolent dimension is touched upon by F. F. Bruce, who remarks that for the author of Hebrews it is important to impress upon the community of the faithful that they have a High Priest who more

21 22 23 24

Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 114. Grässer, Hebrer, 252 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 114; see also Attridge, Hebrews, 143 – 44. Pfitzner, Hebrews, 87; see also Guthrie, Hebrews, 122; Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 114.

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence

105

than anything else feels for them and with them in all their temptations.25 Verse 16 brings the introductory section to a close with a concluding exhortation to the faithful to draw near to the “throne of grace” (t` hqºm\ t/r w²qitor), so as to receive assistance in times of need Vma k²bylem 5keor ja· w²qim evqylem eQr eujaiqom bo¶heiam. Several discrete images are at work in this verse, all of which function to emphasize the notion of intimacy with the divine. The central image of the “throne of grace” (t` hqºm\ t/r w²qitor) recalls the biblical description of the mercy seat, the place from which God’s presence was believed to dwell invisibly.26 In keeping with such imagery derived ultimately from traditions of the desert tabernacle, the exhortation to the faithful to draw near appears likely to be an expression borrowed from the cultic sphere. The encouragement to draw near, therefore, likely intimates the ritual activity of the high priest approaching God’s altar on the Day of Atonement.27 Aside from such obvious cultic overtones, what is most important to see with respect to this activity of drawing near is that it is to be done “with boldness” (let± paqqgs¸ar). The inference is that the approach of the faithful to God is one that is not to be circumscribed by fear or great caution. Unlike the high priest, whose approach to the altar was circumscribed within various limits (see Lev 16:1 – 3), the approach of those who have faith in Christ their High Priest is characterized by a remarkable degree of freedom from constraint.28 Such a specific emphasis upon the confidence or boldness of the community’s approach to God serves to introduce what appears to me as an intriguing notion of striking familiarity or directness on the community’s part in terms of their relationship with God. Because the faithful have in Christ a great High Priest who has come near to them, so they may now approach God in a frank, almost open fashion. Here we begin to discern more clearly the strong theme of the faithful’s intimacy with the divine,29 a theme that will occupy the greater part of the central section of Hebrews, as we shall see below. This same note of confidence before the divine presence is repeated later in the epistle with a reference to the 25 26 27 28 29

F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 126. Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 115. Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 115. Guthrie, Hebrews, 124. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 106.

106

Chapter Five

Sinai event, a passage in which the author contrasts the fearful revelation upon Mount Sinai alongside the image of the festive city of the living God, which is the possession of the faithful (Heb 12:18 – 23). In a deeply evocative fashion, this passage complements Hebrews’ earlier assurance to the community that it is they, and not the disobedient wilderness community, who will enter the eschatological rest of God (see Heb 4:1 – 3). In contrast to the experience of the wilderness generation, the revelation of God’s presence is to fill the faithful with hope and security for a renewed relationship of closeness with God, a relationship free of fear. Foundational to this preliminary portrait of Christ’s Priesthood, therefore, is the guiding motif of intimacy with the divine. Since Christ the exalted High Priest has encountered the faithful in a gesture of full solidarity (2:14, 4:15), so the faithful can now approach God and be in communion with the divine presence in as intimate a fashion as possible. This is why the author encourages their approach to be with “boldness” (paqqgs¸ar). Indeed, just as Christ draws near to God in his passage through the heavens, so in a reciprocal fashion the faithful are encouraged to draw near to God’s presence as well, as represented by the image of the throne. The redemptive consequence of such drawing near is salvation in a very concrete sense of finding mercy and grace. The philanthropic character of such a description of salvation is well borne out by the following observation of Lane: …The promise that they receive “mercy” (5keor), accompanied by sustaining “grace” (w²qir), refers to closely allied and essential aspects of God’s love. That love is outgoing in the provision of (eujaiqom bo¶heiam), i. e., protective help that does not arrive too late, but at the appropriate time because the moment of its arrival is left to the judgment of God.30

Again, what makes this intimacy with God possible in the first instance is the beneficent drawing near of Christ. Just as we are told earlier in the epistle that Christ actively participated in the children’s flesh and blood (Heb 2:14), so now we see that in sympathy with the faithful he was also actively tested like they were (Heb 4:15). What is so distinctive about this introductory section comprised by 4:14 – 16 is that the author now more clearly and explicitly links this complex of themes including the notions of solidarity, intimacy, and divine beneficence with the specific sacrificial image of Christ as High Priest. In other words, the author of 30 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 116.

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence

107

Hebrews intentionally couches his initial presentation of Christ in priestly terms within the larger framework of a beneficent, philanthropic Christology. The next set of verses (Heb 5:1 – 3) treats both the person of the high priest and the priestly office in particular in more detail, and in the process provides the first indications of what the author considers to constitute the essential differences between Christ’s Priesthood and that of the levitical priests: For every high priest chosen from men is appointed to deal with the things pertaining to God on behalf of men, in order that he might offer gifts and sacrifices for the sake of sins. He is able to deal gently with those who ignorantly offend since even he himself is surrounded by weakness. Indeed for this very reason he is obliged to make an offering for sins in like manner for himself, as he does also for the people (P÷r c±q !qwieqe»r 1n !mhq¾pym kalbamºlemor rp³q !mhq¾pym jah¸statai t± pq¹r t¹m heºm, Vma pqosv´q, d_q² te ja· hus¸ar rp³q "laqti_m, letqiopahe?m dum²lemor to?r !cmooOsim ja· pkamyl´moir, 1pe· ja· aqt¹r peq¸jeitai !sh´meiam ja· di’ aqtµm ave¸kei, jah½r peq· toO kaoO, ovtyr ja· peq· aqtoO pqosv´qeim peq· "laqti_m).

Hebrews 5:1 – 3 is immediately distinctive for its transition from the figure of Christ’s Priesthood per se to a reflection upon the characteristics of ordinary human high priests.31 As William Lane remarks, the author concentrates in this section specifically on the humanity of the Jewish high priest, and purposefully eschews any traits suggestive of the supreme dignity accorded to the high priestly office (see Sirach 45:6 – 13; 50:5 – 11). Indeed, a humble portrait of the priesthood predominates, with attention given to the most basic duties attendant upon the office of the priesthood.32 The designation of the priest in 5:1, therefore, as one who is appointed for the sake of humanity to offer gifts and sacrifices to God, hints at the fundamental conception of the priest as a mediatorial figure who connects humanity to God.33 The discrete reference to gifts and sacrifices to be offered for sins: …Vma pqosv´q, d_qa te ja· hus¸ar rp³q "laqti_m may suggest that the author has in mind the specific Day of Atonement ritual as described in Leviticus 16,

31 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 116. 32 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 117. See also Paul Dean Duerksen, “Images of Jesus as Perfect High Priest,” Quarterly Review 14, (1994) 328. 33 See Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 143; Phillip Hughes, Hebrews, 175; Vanhoye, Our Priest is Christ, 24; Norbert Hugedé, Le Sacerdoce Le sacerdoce du fils: commentaire de L’ptre aux Hbreux ( Paris: Éditions Fischbacher, 1983) 45.

108

Chapter Five

the day when Israel’s sins were forgiven and atoned for through the ritual activity of the high priest in the Holy of Holies.34 By far the most distinctive element contained in the description of the humanity of the priest is the affirmation in 5:2 that he is someone who is “able to deal gently with those who ignorantly offend” (…letqiopahe?m dum²lemor to?r !cmooOsim ja· pkamyl´moir). As is generally agreed by many scholars, the Greek verb employed here letqiopah´y to describe the stance of the high priest in relation to others means essentially to moderate strong emotions, especially anger.35 The use of this verb to characterize the high priest is on the face of it striking, since there is really nothing comparable to this description of the high priest in extant Jewish literature.36 Indeed, the same might be said for the description of Christ’s High Priesthood as a sympathetic one.37 The author’s use of the verb here may have its origin, at least in part, in the context of those Old Testament passages which call for the provision of sin offerings for unintentional offenses as opposed to intentional sins.38 With this in mind, the usage of letqiopahe?m might suggest the idea of the priest’s patient consideration in the face of sinful offenders, who have committed sins unwittingly. In such a circumstance of unintentional sinning, the proper response should be one of moderation. Another way to understand the use of this verb is to interpret it in conjunction with Hebrews’ insistence upon the human high priest’s susceptibility to weakness. On this reading, the high priest is both able and obliged to deal gently with others because he, too, is prone to weakness.39 Such an affirmation of the high priest’s fallibility is certainly of importance to the author.40 And at the most fundamental level, this fallibility is conceived by the author as essentially one of liability to sin. 34 Hughes, Hebrews, 176. 35 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 275; Moffatt, Hebrews, 62; Norbert Hugede, Le Sacerdoce, 49; Attridge, Hebrews, 143 – 44. 36 Pursiful, The Cultic Motif, 49. See, however, W. Horbury, who points to such literary witnesses as the Test. Levi 2.4 to argue for the presence of an affective dimension in Jewish reflection on the priestly office. See W. Horbury, “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983) 62. 37 Norbert Hugedé, Le Sacerdoce, 49. 38 Attridge, Hebrews, 144. 39 Guthrie, Hebrews, 126. 40 Pursiful, The Cultic Motif, 49.

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence

109

As Lane notes, while the scriptural regulations governing the high priest’s moral conduct and physical person were quite rigorous, this stringency did not preclude the possibility of the high priest from in fact sinning, as the provisions of Leviticus 4:3 – 12 make clear.41 Moreover, according to Leviticus 16:6 – 14, as part of the Day of Atonement ritual, the high priest needed to perform the sacrifice of a sin offering both for himself and for his house. The author of Hebrews latches onto such evidence and clearly associates the human high priest’s weakness with this liability to sin through the agreement of di’ aqtµm with !sh´meiam : …1pe· ja· aqt¹r peq¸jeitai !she¸meiam ja· di’ aqtµm ave¸kei, jah½r peq· toO kaoO, ovtyr ja· peq· aqtoO pqosv´qeim peq· "laqti_m. Although this section is devoted to a description of the human high priest, it is possible to see implicit, but important comparisons between Christ’s Priesthood and the levitical priesthood. In this way, the author prepares the reader for the more substantive comparisons between Christ and the levitical priests beginning in chapter seven. One area of comparison concerns the important issue of transcendent status. Although the human high priest is described as dealing with the things of God, he is still only a human being beset by weaknesses, particularly the weakness of sin. Christ, however, is described as a High Priest without sin (Heb 4:15), whose sinlessness therefore elevates his stature. As we have already noted, such an elevated status is clearly affirmed later in Herbews 7:26, where Christ is pictured as holy, blameless, undefiled, and set apart from sinners in his exalted status. Moreover, Christ is also someone who possesses a permanent priesthood !paq²batom 5wei tµm Reqys¼mgm (Heb 7:24) due to the fact that he abides forever b d³ di± t¹ l´meim aqt¹m eQr t¹m aQ_ma (Heb 7:23). Perhaps the greatest difference, however, between the respective priesthood of Christ and that of the human high priest, centers on the issue of personal feeling in relation to humanity. Harold Attridge points out that Hebrews employs two different Greek verbs to describe Christ’s and the human high priest’s relation to humanity. While the human high priest is described as merely moderating his anger in the face of human frailty letqiopahe?m, Christ as the divine High Priest actively sympathizes with human beings sulpah/sai.42 This choice of distinctive vocabulary is significant for appreciating the deeper, beneficent motivation beneath Hebrews’ christological portraiture. Hebrews is 41 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 117. 42 Attridge, Hebrews, 143 – 44.

110

Chapter Five

suggesting that Christ’s Priesthood is better precisely because the depth of Christ’s feeling for humanity transcends the response of the human high priest in his encounter with human frailty. In other words, what sets Christ apart and makes him unique in relation to human high priests is his feeling for, and self-commitment to, humanity. Another way we might put this is to say that for the author of Hebrews Christ’s solidarity with humanity is expressive of a more personal connection than that of the human high priest’s. The insight of Attridge concerning these two different verbs helps us discern something of the strong theme of divine beneficence informing this section of Hebrews (4:14 – 5:1 – 3). Divine beneficence and philanthropia emerge specifically in the affirmation that the one who is characterized by sympathy and compassion for the faithful is someone who has also passed through the heavens and is without sin. For the author of Hebrews it is understandable that the human high priest would feel for us, since he is fundamentally like us, beset by weaknesses, such as liability to sin. What is remarkable for the author, however, is that the one who has passed through the heavens and is without sin, nonetheless empathizes with humanity in a deeper fashion than even human high priests do. Indeed, Christ goes beyond treating humanity gently and more personally sympathizes with them, despite his transcendent status. What is being stressed in this introductory passage above all else is the conviction that the faithful have a glorious transcendent Priest, who nonetheless has more fellow feeling than even a human priest. Christ is a transcendent Priest who nonetheless has given himself over to humanity in the deepest possible way, even to the point of being tested like we are (Heb 4:15). My point here is that the comparisons between Christ and the human high priest rest only partially upon Christ’s superior Priesthood and transcendent status, e. g., the conviction that he has passed through the heavens and is without sin. For the author of Hebrews, Christ’s greatness lies more in a personal dimension, the fact that he actively feels for and sympathizes with humanity. In other words, it is precisely Christ’s beneficence and love for humanity that is particularly preeminent in the character of the Son. It is this beneficent character of Christ that is ultimately being celebrated by Hebrews, and it is this character that most accounts for Christ’s greatness and perfection for the author. The next set of verses (Heb 5:4 – 6) further elaborate upon the office of the priesthood by focusing on its divinely ordained status and justification:

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence

111

And no one takes this honor for himself, but instead is called by God just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify himself to made a High Priest; rather, it was God who spoke to him: You are my Son, I have given birth to you today. Just as it says in another place: You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek ( ja· oqw 2aut` tir kalb²mei tµm tilµm !kk± jako¼lemor rp¹ toO heoO jah¾speq ja· )aq¾m. Ovtyr ja· b Wqist¹r oqw 2aut¹m 1dºnasem cemgh/mai !qwieq´a !kk’ b kak¶sar pq¹r aqtºm7 uRºr lou eW s¼, 1c½ s¶leqom cec´mmgj² se7 jah½r ja· 1m 2t´q\ k´cei7 s» Reqe»r eQr t¹m aQ_ma jat± tµm t²nim Leknis´dej).

We observe here the office of the priesthood couched in terms of a divine vocation, with God as the actor in conferring the priesthood. As in the previous section where the author contrasts Christ’s High Priestly status with the priesthood of the human high priest, here, too, the author similarly casts Christ alongside the figure of Aaron. Interestingly, just as the author employs the specific verbs letqiop²heim and sulpah/sai in order to compare Christ with other priests, a similar implied contrast occurs in the words used to describe the appointments of Aaron and Christ. While Aaron was called jako¼lemor, Christ is spoken to directly by God kak¶sar. Moreover, Christ’s reception of the priesthood is set within a collection of Scripture passages, thereby further highlighting the divine basis of Christ’s commission: “You are my Son, I have given birth to you today” (Psalm 2:7) and “You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). The idea is certainly that Christ is a greater Priest in his capacity as the Son. The next set of verses, the conclusion of the section begun in 4:14, reflects further upon the character of Christ’s Priesthood through a sustained reflection upon the sufferings endured by Christ (5:7 – 10). As such, these verses continue the author’s interest in the delineation of Christ’s character introduced in 4:15 with the reference in that verse to Christ’s sympathy for human weaknesses: Who in the days of his flesh after having offered up prayers and entreaties with a loud cry and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered, and having become perfected he became a source of eternal salvation for all those who are obeying him, having been designated by God a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (dr 1m ta?r Bl´qair t/r saqj¹r aqtoO de¶seir te ja· Rjetgq¸ar pq¹r t¹m dum²lemom s`feim aqt¹m 1j ham²tou let± jqauc/r Qswuq÷r ja· dajq¼ym pqosem´cjar ja· eQsajoushe·r !p¹ t/r eqkabe¸ar, ja¸peq £m uRºr, 5lahem !v’ ¨m 5pahem tµm rpojo¶m, ja· tekeiyhe·r 1c´meto p÷sim to?r rpojo¼ousim aqt` aUtior sytgq¸ar aQym¸ou, pqosacoqeuhe·r rp¹ toO heoO !qwieqe»r jat± tµm t²nim Lekwis´dej).

112

Chapter Five

As in Hebrews 2:10, the concept of Christ’s perfection is joined closely here to the experience of his suffering. Here, however, the account of Jesus’ suffering is given a more substantial description, with such details emphasized as his “loud cry” and “tears” (5:7). While in a very general sense the passage calls to mind the synoptic accounts of Gethsemane (see Matt 26:36 – 46; Mark 14:32 – 42; Luke 22:40 – 46), the details are different enough to suggest an independent tradition, if a tradition at all.43 Undoubtedly, the most interesting detail of the passage is the reference to Christ learning obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8). The notion of educative suffering was, of course, a traditional Greek concept often applied negatively in the sense of learning from mistakes.44 It is unlikely, however, that such a notion is being applied to Jesus. Rather, a pastoral concern for the audience is apparent, that is, the emphasis on Jesus’ suffering which leads to obedience likely serves a larger paradigmatic function for other Christians to learn from.45 In other words, the portrait of Christ’s passion serves to give meaning and consolation to the faithful who presently are experiencing some form of social distress. This paradigmatic dimension to suffering is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Hebrews 12:3 – 8: For consider the kind of hostility which he endured rpolelemgjºta against himself at the hands of sinners, so that you might not be discouraged when you have grown weary. For in your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood. And neither forget the encouragement that is addressed to you as to sons: My son, do not despise the punishment of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are chastised by him. For the Lord punishes whomever he loves, and chastises every son whom he favorably accepts. Endure punishment, since God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline? But if you are apart from the punishment which all have come to participate in, then accordingly you are illegitimate and are not sons ( !makoc¸sashe c±q t¹m toia¼tgm rpolelemgjºta rp¹ t_m "laqtyk_m eQr 2aut¹m !mtikoc¸am, Vma lµ j²lgte ta?r xuwa?r rl_m 1jkuºlemoi. Oupy l´wqir aVlator !mtijat´stgte pq¹r tµm "laqt¸am !mtacymifºlemoi. ja· 1jk´kgshe t/r paqajk¶seyr, Ftir rl?m ¢r uRo?r diak´cetai7 uR´ lou, lµ akic¾qei paide¸ar juq¸ou lgd³ 1jk¼ou rp’ aqtoO 1kecwºlemor7 dm c±q !capø j¼qior paide¼ei, lastico? d³ p²mta 43 Atridge, Hebrews, 148. 44 Attridge, Hebrews, 152 – 53. See also J Coste. “Notion greque et notion biblique de la ‘souffrance éducatrice’ (A propos d’Hébreux, v, 8,” Recherches de science religieuse 43 (1955): 481 – 523 45 See Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 428; August Konkel, “The Sacrifice of Obedience,” Didaskalia 2 (1989) 2 – 3; Attridge, Hebrews, 152 – 53.

A High Priesthood of Intimate Presence

113

uR¹m dm paqad´wetai. e·r paide¸am rpol´mete, ¢r uRo?r rl?m pqosv´qetai b heºr. t¸r c±q uR¹r dm oq paide¼ei pat¶q. eQ d³ wyq¸r 1ste paide¸ar Hr l´towoi cecºmasim p²mter, %qa mºhoi ja· oqw uRo¸ 1ste.).

The passage begins with an immediate presentation of Christ in a paradigmatic, pastoral light, thereby setting the tone for the extended exhortation to follow. The community is called upon to “consider” Christ and the “hostility” that he himself suffered and endured (Heb 12:3). From here the author introduces a reflection on the refining value of discipline in the context of a scriptural presentation of the community as the children of God. Although the author does not define the particular form of suffering that the community is experiencing, the reference to not shedding blood (Heb 12:4) may suggest persecution of some kind as we have already alluded to. Apart from such speculation on a possible historical situation, the author’s reflection on the value of discipline provides a clear example of how Christ’s suffering functions paradigmatically in relation to the faithful. Just as Christ suffered although he was the Son, so the faithful of the community envisioned as children must also endure discipline precisely because they are children. Moreover, just Christ’s suffering resulted in perfection (Heb 5:8 – 9) so too the suffering endured by the members of the community will ultimately result in their partaking of God’s holiness (Heb 12:10). In this way, then, the obedience won by Christ through suffering serves as a kind of theological narrative or story by which the community is to understand their own experiences of suffering. For like Christ, the perfect Son, they too are sons; and like Christ their own suffering shall serve as a passage to maturity when they shall themselves share in the fellowship of God’s holiness. Finally, by placing the example of Christ as a kind of preface to the subsequent exhortation on the refining value of discipline, the author invites the community to a particular understanding of faith. Faith is essentially the sacrifice of patient obedience, an obedience that is the expression of a life lived in authentic relationship to God.46 The question of the meaning of Christ’s perfection becomes important at this juncture. According to Peterson, Jesus’ experiences of suffering enable him to express and learn what obedience to God in the fullest sense amounts to.47 This vocational experience essentially 46 Konkel, “The Sacrifice of Obedience,” 9. 47 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 94 – 103; see also Paul Dean Duerksen, “Images of Jesus Christ,” 329; Anthony Hoekma, “The Perfection of Christ in

114

Chapter Five

amounts to a kind of testing, which then qualifies Jesus to be a High Priest for his people.48 As already mentioned, Peterson’s proposal is persuasive. However, the affirmation of Christ’s testing or his vocational acquisition of obedience seems not to be the main emphasis in view here. Just as we saw in our exegesis of Hebrews 2:5 – 18, so here the emphasis of Hebrews does not appear to reside so much on what happens to Jesus. Rather, Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus’ profound humanity functions to say something about the character of Christ. Although he is God’s Son (Heb 5:5, 8) and a Priest forever (Heb 5:6), Christ is essentially defined by his intimacy with the human condition. Such intimacy is consonant with the portrayal we have seen thus far of Christ as merciful and sympathetic. Perfection therefore signifies the depth of Christ’s beneficence. Perfection, in other words, comments upon the extent of Christ’s participation in the human sphere.

The Perfection of Divine Solidarity The third and final instance of perfection terminology to be applied to Jesus occurs in Hebrews 7:28. From a broader thematic standpoint, this last instance of the motif of Christ’s perfection appears in a context informed by Hebrews 6:19 – 20 and Hebrews 10:19 – 22, passages where we see the author’s insistence that through hope the faithful are enabled to enter behind the curtain (Heb 6:19 – 20) and to attain entrance into the sanctuary (Heb 10:19 – 22). As such, these passages serve to bracket the material that lies between them with metaphors expressive of communion with the divine. The immediate context of Hebrews 7:28 properly begins in Hebrews 7:26. This entire passage should therefore be taken into account: For it was fitting for us to have such a High Priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners and uplifted to heaven. He is not compelled to offer sacrifices every day first for his own sins and then for the people, as do the high priests. For he did this when he offered himself once and for all. For the Law appoints high priests who have weakness, but the word of the oath which came after the Law appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever (ToioOtor c±q Bl?m ja· 5pqepem !qwieqe¼r, fsior %jajor !l¸amtor, jewyqisl´mor !p¹ t_m "laqtyk_m ja· rxgkºteqor t_m Hebrews,” Calvin Theological Journal 9 ((1974) 36; P. J. Du Plessis, TEKEIOS, 220. 48 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 103.

The Perfection of Divine Solidarity

115

oqqam_m cemºlemor, dr oqj 5wei jah’ Bl´qam !m²cjgm, ¦speq oR !qwieqe?r, pqºteqom rp³q t_m Qd¸ym "laqti_m hus¸ar !mav´qeim 5peita t_m toO kaoO7 toOto c±q 1po¸gsem 1v²pan 2aut¹m !mem´cjar. b mºlor c±q !mhq¾pour jah¸stgsim !qwieqe?r 5womtar !sh´meiam, b kºcor d³ t/r bqjylos¸ar t/r let± t¹m mºlom uR¹m eQr t¹m aQ_ma tetekeiyl´mom).

The key ideas in the foregoing include that of the weakness of the former priests and the idea of the oath, both of which hearken back to the author’s use of the figure of Melchizedek as a way of reflecting upon the meaning of Christ’s Priesthood. The enigmatic figure of Melchizedek49 appears in two places in the Old Testament: Genesis 14:17 – 20 and Psalm 110:4. The account from Genesis is evident in Hebrews 7:1 – 2, and the author quotes Psalm 110:4 directly in 7:17 and 7:21. The rather cryptic nature of the scriptural instances of Melchizedek fits our author’s argument quite well, in the sense that the figure of Melchizedek functions ultimately to emphasize the timeless and preeminently transcendent quality of Christ’s status as Priest.50 This is immediately apparent in Hebrews 7:3: Without father, mother, or genealogy, possessing neither a beginning of days nor an end to life, but having been made like the Son, he remains a Priest forever ( !p²tyq !l¶tyq !cemeakºcgtor, l¶te !qwµm Bleq_m l¶te fy/r t´kor 5wym, !vyloiyl´mor d³ t` ri` toO heoO, l´mei Reqe»r eQr t¹ digmej´r).

This emphasis upon Christ’s transcendent status is in many respects the hallmark of chapter seven taken as a whole. Indeed the theme of transcendence appears to be initially recalled in the opening of Hebrews 8:1 – 2 with the reference to Christ’s exaltation. However, the author’s argument suddenly changes in 8:3 with the insistence that Christ was a Priest who had to have something to offer. It is here where the distinctive Christology of Hebrews’ portrait comes into clearer focus, for the author sees Christ not only as a Priest who has an eternal and indestructible life, but as a Priest who gives his own life. Indeed, what Christ offers is nothing less than his own person for the sake of the faithful (Heb 7:27). This personal aspect of Christ’s offering now 49 Reflection on the figure of Melchizadek was not an innovation on the part of Hebrews. At Qumran, for example, Melchizedek appears as a heavenly figure who seems to possess prerogatives of cosmic judgment (11Q Melchizedek). If the author of Hebrews knew of this cosmic appraisal he has neglected it in favor of the scriptural presentation of the mysterious priest-king. See the discussion in Anderson, King-Priest, 212 – 213. See also Hay, Gory, 134 – 143. 50 Attridge, Hebrews, 191.

116

Chapter Five

becomes the guiding motif in the exposition to follow. From this point on through Hebrews 10:23, the beneficent benefits of Christ’s HighPriestly sacrifice for the faithful will be the guiding motif. This emphasis upon divine beneficence and its effects upon the faithful is hinted at immediately in the opening of chapter eight (Heb 8:1 – 7): Now this is the main point in what has been said: we have such a great High Priest who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tent, which the Lord set up, not a human being. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it was necessary for this one to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since those who offer up gifts do so according to the Law. These are those who minister to heavenly things by way of a model and shadow, just as Moses received a revelation when he was about to construct the tent: ‘Now see to it that you shall make everything according to the type that was shown to you on the mountain.” But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, in as much as he is the mediator of a greater covenant, which has been enacted upon greater promises ( Jev²kaiom d³ 1p· to?r kecol´moir, toioOtom 5wolem !qwieq´a, dr 1j²hisem 1m deniø toO hqºmou t/r lecakys¼mgr 1m to?r oqqamo?r, t_m "c¸ym keitouqc¹r ja· t/r sjgm/r t/r !kghim/r, Dm 5pgnem b j¼qior, oqj %mhqypor. P÷r c±q !qwieqe»r eQr t¹ pqosv´qeim d_q² te ja· hus¸ar jah¸statai7 fhem !macja?om 5weim ti ja· toOtom d pqosem´cj,. eQ l³m owm Gm 1p· c/r, oqd’ #m Gm Reqe¼r, emtym t_m pqosveqºmtym jat± mºlom t± d_qa7 oVtimer rpode¸clati ja· sjiø katqe¼ousim t_m 1pouqam¸ym, jah½r jewqgl²tistai Lyus/r l´kkym 1piteke?m tµm sjgm¶m7 fqa c±q vgsim, poi¶seir p²mta jat± t¹m t¼pom t¹m deiwh´mta soi 1m t` eqei7 Mum· d³ diavoqyt´qar t´tuwem keitouqc¸ar, fs\ ja· jqe¸ttomºr 1stim diah¶jgr les¸tgr, Ftir 1p· jqe¸ttosim 1paccek¸air memoloh´tgtai).

Complementing a pattern we have already seen at work elsewhere in the epistle, the author immediately places Christ’s salvific activity in the context of its significance for the faithful. Specifically, by offering himself once and for all (Heb 7:27), Christ makes possible through his Priestly sacrifice a new covenant for the faithful. Of course, the conviction that Christians share in a new covenant is a very traditional one and is in fact emphasized a number of times in the course of Hebrews’ argument. For example, the avowal that a new covenant exists for the faithful underlies the claim in Hebrews 1:2 that God has spoken to the community in the last of these days. Similarly, reflection upon the covenant appears in Hebrews’ claim that it is the faithful of the community who receive both the divine rest of God and the promises bequeathed long ago to the people of Israel (see Heb 4:1 – 3 & 11:39). In the immediate passage under examination, however, such traditional

The Perfection of Divine Solidarity

117

covenantal language is put to a unique use by virtue of the guiding rubric of Christ’s sacrificial activity. By offering himself for the faithful, Christ enables a renewed relationship between God and the faithful members of the community gathered around the memory of the Son. The author expresses this note of relationship and intimacy with God by specifically quoting from Jeremiah 31:34: For this is the covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord; after I have put my laws into their understanding, I shall them write them on their heart and I will be their God and they will be my people. (Heb 8:10).

In other words, the personal offering of Christ allows for an analogous relationship of intimacy between God and the faithful. Indeed, as suggested by the Jeremiah quote, Christ’s offering allows for a new covenant marked by a kind of inner renewal that enables a renewed and deeper relationship with the divine. On this very issue of intimacy and relationship with the divine, Albert Vanhoye argues that Hebrews has connected the cultic activity of Christ with the notion of covenant in order to stress a meaningful horizontal relationship between Christ and the faithful. While Christ is the divine and transcendent High Priestly Son (the vertical relationship), he is just as importantly the Son who takes care for the faithful (the horizontal relationship).51 In keeping with the strong sacrificial imagery of this section, the author goes on to argue that this covenant relationship of intimacy is mediated specifically through the agency of blood (Heb 9:6 – 7): And with these things having thus been prepared, the priests constantly enter the first tent to accomplish the worship, but only once a year does the high priest alone enter the second, and even then he does not make an offering both for himself and for the unwitting sins of the people without blood (…To¼tym d³ ovtyr jatesjeuasl´mym7 eQr l³m tµm pq¾tgm sj¶mgm di± pamt¹r eQs¸asim oR Reqe?r t±r katqe¸ar 1pitekoOmter, eQr d³ tµm deut´qam ûpan toO 1miautoO lºmor b !qwieqe¼r, oq wyq·r aVlator f pqosv´qei rp³q 2autoO ja· t_m toO kaoO !cmogl²tym).

It seems clear here that the author is working with a conception that locates the forgiveness of sins through the sacrificial shedding of blood (see Heb 9:22). Integral to this conception is the assumption that the shedding of blood is necessary to gain access to God.52 It is at this point that Hebrews makes the claim that the sacrifices performed by the high 51 Albert Vanhoye, ‘La teleisis du Christ, 336 – 337. 52 Pursiful, The Cultic Motif, 69 – 72.

118

Chapter Five

priest lack sacrificial effectiveness, particularly in the domain of forgiving sins. Hebrews conceives of the content of forgiveness as the perfecting of the conscience of the worshipper: …Which is a parable for the present time, inasmuch as gifts and sacrifices offered are unable to perfect the conscience of the worshipper, but deal only with foods and drinks and various washings, regulations of the flesh which are in order until the destruction of this time (Ftir paqabokµ eQr t¹m jaiq¹m t¹m 1mestgjºta, jah’ Fm d_qa te ja· hus¸ai pqosv´qomtai lµ dum²lemai jat± sume¸dgsim tekei_sai t¹m katqe¼omta, lºmom 1p· bq¾lasim ja· pºlasim ja· diavºqoir baptislo?r, dijai¾lata saqj¹r l´nqi jaiqoO dioqh¾seyr 1pije¸lema) (Heb 9: 9 – 10).

Here we see Hebrews’ emphasis on the internal state of the faithful. While the sacrifices of the levitical priests are unable to work in a deep enough fashion, Christ’s personal offering of himself does accomplish this depth dimension precisely because Christ offers himself. Put in another way, Christ is not simply a Priest, but victim as well (Heb 9:11 – 14): But when Christ appeared as a High Priest of the good things to come then through the greater and more perfect tent not fashioned by human hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered once and for all into the sanctuary having after having obtained an eternal redemption through his own blood, and not that of calves and goats. For if the blood of calves and bulls and the ashes of a young cow when once sprinkled upon those who have been defiled sanctifies the flesh for the purpose of purification, then how much more will the blood of Christ, Who through an eternal spirit offered himself blameless to God cleanse our conscience from dead works to the end that we serve the living God (Wqist¹r d³ paqacemºlemor !qwieqe»r t_m cemol´mym !cah_m di± t/r le¸fomor ja· tekeiot´qar sjgm/r oq weiqopoi¶tou, toOt’ 5stim oq ta¼tgr t/r jt¸seyr, oqd³ di’ aVlator tq²cym ja· lºswym di± d³ toO Qd¸ou aVlator eQs/khem 1v²pan eQr t± ûcia aQym¸am k¼tqysim erq²lemor. eQ c±q t¹ aXla tq²cym ja· ta¼qym ja· spod¹r dal²keyr Namt¸fousa to»r jejoimyl´mor "ci²fei pq¹r tµm t/r saqj¹r jahaqºtgta, pºs\ l÷kkom t¹ aXla toO WqistoO, fr di± pme¼lator aQym¸ou 2aut¹m pqos¶mecjem %lymom t` he`, jahaqie? tµm sume¸dgsim Bl_m !p¹ mejq_m 5qcym eQr ta katqe¼eim he` f_mti).

The author makes the point here of saying that it is through his own blood that Christ obtains redemption. In other words, it is through the personal sacrifice of himself that Christ carries out his Priestly status. The author continues this line of thought by relating the personal offering of Christ to the idea of the inner transformation of the faithful. While blood is needed to effect purification or cleansing, the Son’s blood is of a qualitatively greater worth since it is his own. He is not

The Perfection of Divine Solidarity

119

simply the eternal Son who has an indestructible life (Heb 7:24), but he is the eternal Son who has nonetheless offered himself.53 It is an offering in which the Son comes as close to humanity as possible by making a personal commitment to them in the most radical way possible: through his own death. In turn, this highly personal offering allows for a corresponding approach of intimacy on behalf of the faithful. Because of his sacrifice, Christ makes possible a renewed intimacy with God conceived via the metaphor of a cleansed or perfected conscience.54 It is precisely this renewal of conscience that leads to relationship and communion with God; indeed, such renewal enables the faithful “to serve the living God.” (Heb 9:14). In many ways what we initially saw in chapter seven pertaining to Christ’s supreme transcendence in relation to the levitical priests doesn’t prepare us for such emphases as the above. In his article on the meaning of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews, Albert Vanhoye notes how the author of Hebrews is attempting to speak in this epistle about a new type of priestly perfection. According to Vanhoye, the real point of departure for the author’s reflection on Christ as perfect High Priest is the passion, a passion already hinted at in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8 with the references to Christ’s suffering. Vanhoye contends that Christ’s perfection lies precisely in the fact that he gave himself up as an offering to God, and the reason this act of offering is better and more perfect than all that came before is precisely because it was personal in character.55 Unlike the human high priests who come before God with blood that is not their own (Heb 9:25), Christ offers his own blood, not the blood of another: (Heb 9:24 – 26): For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by human hands, a type of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God on our behalf. Nor does he offer himself many times, as does the High Priest who enters into the sanctuary yearly with blood that is not his own, since then he would have to suffer many times from the foundation of the world. But as it is now he has appeared once and for all at the close of the 53 It is important to appreciate this personal dimension implicit in the sacrificial image of Christ’s blood. See Joseph Moingt, “La fin du sacrifice,” Lumire et Vie 217 (1994) 26. See also Adrian Schenker, “Sacrifices anciens, sacrifice nouveau dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” Lumire et Vie 217 (1994) 76 54 La Rondelle makes the point concerning how Hebrews focuses intently on the heart and conscience of the believer when reflecting upon the nature of salvation. See La Rondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism, 194. 55 Vanhoye, La teleisis du Christ, 332 – 333.

120

Chapter Five

age to remove sin through the sacrifice of himself (oq c±q eQr weiqopo¸gta eQs/khem ûcia Wqistºr, !mt¸tupa t_m !kghim_m, !kk’ eQr aqt¹m t¹m oqqamºm, mOm 1lvamish/mai t` pqos¾p\ toO heoO rp³q Bl_m7 oqd’ Vma pokk²jir pqºsv´q, 2autºm, ¦speq b !qwieqe»r eQs´qwetai eQr t± ûcia ja· 1miaut¹m 1m aVlati !kkotq¸\, 1pe· 5dei aqt¹m pokk²jir pahe?m !p¹ jatabok/r jºslou7 mum· d³ ûpan 1p· sumteke¸ô t_m aQ¾mym eQr !h´tgsim t/r "laqt¸ar di± t/r hus¸ar aqtoO pevam´qytai).

This emphasis on Christ’s personal sacrifice is further reinforced with elements suggestive of Christ’s very personal commitment to the faithful. For example, Christ’s own blood, not the blood of bulls or goats effectively removes sins (Heb 9:12 – 14). Likewise, the author specifically locates the sanctification of the faithful in the gift of salvation which they received specifically through the body of Christ (Heb 10:10). Indeed, the faithful can now approach God precisely because of the intimate depth of Christ’s personal offering of himself for them. This reciprocal movement of Christ’s highly personal approach to the faithful and the approach of faithful to God is beautifully expressed in the hortatory section of 10:19 – 22, which concludes this section of the letter: Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have the boldness of an entrance way into the sanctuary by the means of the blood of Jesus, an entrance which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is his flesh, and since we have a great High Priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from the consciousness of evil and with our body washed with pure water (=womter owm, !dekvo¸, paqqgs¸am eQr tµm eUsodom t_m "c¸ym 1m t` aVlatiYgsoO, Dm 1meja¸misem Bl?m bd¹m pqºsvatom ja· f_sam di± toO jatapet²slator, toOt’ 5stim t/r saqj¹r aqtoO, ja· Req´a l´cam 1p· t¹m oWjom toO heoO, pqoseqw¾leha let± !kghim/r jaqd¸ar 1m

pkgqovoq¸ô p¸steyr Neqamtisl´moi t±r jaqd¸ar !p¹ sumeid¶seyrpomgq÷r ja· kekousl´moi t¹ s_la vdati jahaq`).

It is crucial to notice the deeply beneficent character of this last passage. Christ brings salvation to the community not principally because he is the eternal Son and High Priest of God. Rather, salvation conceived as access to God rests on the ultimately sympathetic and personal commitment of the Son to the faithful as expressed in the offering of his blood and flesh (Heb 10:19 – 20). Although Christ is the High Priest who uniquely abides forever (Heb 7:24), he is from an even deeper perspective for the author of Hebrews the divine High Priest who gives his life so that the faithful might approach God and live in intimacy with the divine presence:

The Perfection of Divine Solidarity

121

so that he is able to save absolutely those who approach God through him, since he lives at all times to make intercession for them (fhem ja· s]feim eQr t¹ pamtek³r d¼matai to»r pqoseqwol´mour di’ aqtoO t` he`, p²mtote f_m eQr t¹ 1mtucw²meim rp³q aqt_m) (Heb 7:25).

In this way, then, we see the depth of the Son’s sympathy, indeed the depth of the Son’s solidarity with the faithful. Christ is the High Priest not only in God’s presence, but most importantly a High Priest brought into intimate presence with the faithful. We see, therefore, how the theme of divine beneficence and philanthropia echoed elsewhere in Hebrews receives its most exquisite expression in Hebrews’ presentation of Christ as transcendent and beneficent High Priest.

CHAPTER SIX The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews It is appropriate to assume that an appreciation for the social setting and audience of Hebrews would prove valuable for the contextualization of the Christology of the letter. I currently align myself with the emerging scholarly consensus that sees Hebrews as bearing some form of connection to Rome, and in this final chapter I will suggest how the beneficent Christology that I have posited in the previous chapters might complement such a provenance.1 Nonetheless, one must frankly admit that Hebrews is not readily amenable to historical reconstruction, since the best evidence we have for situating both the setting and audience of Hebrews is inherent to the epistle and this evidence is limited. Therefore, I concede that any proposal on my part as to the social location and audience of Hebrews must remain provisional. Recently, Pamela Eisenbaum has gone so far as to suggest that Hebrews should in fact be viewed as addressed to an implied or ideal audience in keeping with what she sees as the epistle’s character as a theological essay.2 Although Eisenbaum’s caution is well founded, I hesitate to view Hebrews as directed to what she has called “a more broadly understood body of Christians.”3 I think the letter does offer certain glimpses of a specific geographical setting and social situation. For example, the likelihood that the setting was an urban one is suggested by a number of rhetorical elements consistent with an urban environment. These range from maritime imagery evocative of ports: “we drift away” 1

2 3

On this emerging consensus with regard to the provenance of Hebrews see: Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, Jesus’ Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the Passion (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg, 2004) 130; Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: the Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe ( Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 219, 2002) 119; Mitchell, Hebrews, 7; Koester, Hebrews 49 – 50; Attridge, Hebrews, 11. Pamela Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews Within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 230 – 31. Eisenbaum,” Locating Hebrews,“ 231.

The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews

123

(paqaqu_lem) (Heb 2:1); “anchor” (%cjuqam) (Heb 6:19); to warnings inveighing against sexual immorality (Heb 13:4); injunctions to visit prisoners (Heb 13: 3); and finally to a description of the members of the community in Hebrews 13:14 as those who look forward to a more permanent city: oq c±q 5wolem ¨de l´mousam pºkim !kk± tµm l´kkousam 1pifgtoOlem.4 The specific makeup and mindset of the addressees is more difficult to gauge. While some scholars argue for a Gentile audience, the more traditional view posits an audience of Jewish Christians.5 The argument in favor of an essentially Jewish-Christian audience has a certain immediate plausibility given that the author assumes his audience to be readily familiar with various stories and figures from the Jewish Bible, as well as with sacrificial language informed by the sacrificial institutions contained in the Jewish Bible.6 It is important to remember, however, that even a predominantly Gentile community could have appropriated typically Jewish perspectives, given the extent to which Jewish and Gentile cultures coexisted in the diaspora.7 One immediately thinks here of Paul’s largely Gentile audience as envisaged in Romans, an audience that seems to cultivate an appreciation for the ethical mandates of the Jewish Law despite their Gentile background. The argument for a Jewish-Christian audience, in conjunction with the complex theological argumentation of Hebrews, has frequently led to the proposal that Hebrews was written to curb some form of apostasy to Judaism.8 A typical expression of this argument is the claim that the community has experienced some type of persecution, which in turn has resulted in some members of the community growing weary in their 4 5

6 7 8

Pfitzner, Hebrews, 28. See also Lane who gives further examples: Hebrews 1 – 8, liii. Moffatt denies a Jewish audience; see Moffatt, Hebrews, xvi-xvii. See also Grässer, “Der Hebräerbrief 1938 – 1963,” Theologische Rundschau 30 (1964): 148 – 49; Hans Windisch, Der Hebrerbrief (Tübingen, 1931) 31; see also David Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 212. For the argument for a Jewish-Christian audience see F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 9; Hughes, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 18 – 19; Lindars, Theology, 17. Ellingworth may be correct in his assessment that the community was a mixed one, perhaps comprised of a large proportion of converted Jews; see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 25. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 23. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 23; see also F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 5. See De Silva, Perserverance, 261 – 262. See also Guthrie, Hebrews, 38; F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 9; Hughes, Hebrews, 11; Lindars, Theology, 4.

124

Chapter Six

allegiance to Christ.9 In the face of such a situation of distress certain members of the community may have been tempted to revert to a more familiar Judaism that had the status of a religio licita in the imperial period.10 Barnabas Lindars offers an interesting elaboration of this basic proposal of apostasy by arguing that Hebrews was written to a community in the throes of uncertainty concerning the full atoning efficacy of Christ’s death. According to Lindars, Hebrews’ insistence that certain foods are of no benefit to those who observe them: …jak¹m c±q w²qiti bebaioOshai tµm jaqd¸am, oq bq¾lasim 1m oXr oqj ¡vek¶hgsam oR peqipatoOmter (Heb 13:9), along with the injunction in Hebrews 10:25 not to abandon communal assemblies …lµ 1cjatake¸pomter tµm 1pisumacycµm 2aut_m, jah½r 5hor tis¸m, !kk± paqajakoOmter, ja· toso¼t\ l÷kkom fs\ bk´pete 1cc¸fousim tµm Bl´qam, together suggest a community in liturgical crisis. According to Lindars, Hebrews envisions a setting in which Jewish Christians are abandoning Christian assemblies in favor of attending more familiar synagogue meetings where they might experience a “sense of solidarity with the temple where the whole sacrificial system, with its daily offerings, is performed on behalf of Jews everywhere.”11 The problem with this construal of the situation of the readers is that there is little firm evidence in the letter suggesting a return to Judaism.12 Even those scholars who would not want to venture to such lengths of specificity in terms of a possible setting for Hebrews frequently argue that the epistle is addressing some form of spiritual lethargy or waning commitment among its intended audience; a spiritual malaise that the author of the epistle endeavors to remedy by way of deepening the community’s collective commitment to the faith.13 Possible evidence for

9 Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews,” 234. 10 Victor C. Pfitzner, “The Rhetoric of Hebrews,” Lutheran Theological Journal 27 (1993), 12; see also F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 9 and Johnson, Hebrews, 36 – 37. 11 Lindars, Theology, 10 – 12. Other scholars have similarly noted the plausibility for a problem centering around liturgy or worship: see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 25; Pfitzner, “The Rhetoric of Hebrews,” 11. Attridge considers Hebrews 10:25 to be the most “concrete datum” concerning the problem addressed in Hebrews: see Attridge, Hebrews, 12. 12 Eisenbaum, Locating Hebrews,“ 234; Mitchell, Hebrews, 13; Koester, Hebrews 71 – 72. 13 Johnson, Hebrews, 36. See also Augustine Mulloor, “The Pioneer of Salvation and the Merciful and Faithful High Priest,” Jeevadhara 27 (1997): 129; David Peterson, “The Situation of the ‘Hebrews’ (5:11 – 6:12),” Reformed Theological

The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews

125

such a wavering in commitment is perhaps evident in Hebrews 2:1 – 3, where the author encourages the community to hold fast to what they have heard and not neglect the gift of salvation that they previously received.14 For this reason the author specifically warns his audience in Hebrews 2:1 about the danger of drifting away paqaqu_lem from those things that they had previously “heard” ( !joushe?sam). A similar concern for the audience seems apparent in Hebrews 5:11, where the author characterizes some in his audience as dull of hearing myhqo· cecºmate ta?r !joa?r.15 Further evidence for a possible crisis in commitment on the part of the audience is suggested in the following selection of material stemming from the paraenetic sections of the letter. The consistent theme discernable throughout these passages concerns the author’s warning against the community falling either into acts of disobedience or displaying a collective loss of faith: Beware, brothers, so that no one among you might turn away from the living God because of an evil heart marked by disbelief (bk´pete, !dekvo¸, l¶pote 5stai 5m timi rl_m jaqd¸a pomgq± !pist¸ar 1m t` !post/mai !p¹ heoO f_mtor) (Heb 3:12).

Therefore let us be afraid, so that while the promise to enter into his rest remains open, none of you might seem to have been excluded (vobgh_lem owm, l¶pote jatakeipol´mgr 1paccek¸ar eQsekhe?m eQr tµm jat²pausim aqtoO doj0 tir 1n rl_m rsteqgj´mai) (Heb 4:1). Therefore let us be eager to enter into that rest, so that no one might fall into the same example of disobedience (Spoud²sylem owm eQsekhe?m eQr 1je¸mgm tµm jat²pausim, Vma lµ 1m t` aqt` tir rpode¸clati p´s, t/r !peihe¸ar) (Heb 4:11). And we desire that each one of you demonstrate the same diligence for the full assurance of the faith until the end, so that you might not become sluggish, but rather imitators of those who, through faith and patience, are inheriting the promises (1pihuloOlem d³ 6jastom rl_m tµm aqtµm 1mde¸jmushai spoudµm pq¹r tµm pkgqovoq¸am t/r 1kp¸dor %wqi t´kour, Vma lµ myhqo· c´mgshe, lilgta· d³ t_m di± p¸steyr ja· lajqohul¸ar jkgqomolo¼mtym t±r 1paccek¸ar) (Heb 6:11 – 12). …Do not neglect the assembling together of yourselves, as is the custom of some, but encourage (one another), and all the more so as you see the day drawing near (lµ 1cjatake¸pomter tµm 1pisumacycµm 2aut_m, jah½r 5hor

Review 35 (1976) 20; Ray C. Stedman, Hebrews (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992) 12; Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lxi; Attridge, Hebrews, 13. 14 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, 37. 15 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lvi.

126

Chapter Six

t¸sim, !kk± paqajakoOmter, ja· toso¼t\ l÷kkom fs\ bk´pete 1cc¸fousam tµm Bl´qam) (Heb 10:25).

Do not throw away your confidence, which possesses a great reward; for you have need of endurance so that once you have accomplished the will of God you might obtain the promise (lµ !pob²kgte owm tµm paqqgs¸am rl_m, Ftir 5wei lec²kgm lishapodos¸am. rpolom/r c±q 5wete wqe¸am Vma t¹ h´kgla toO heoO poi¶samter jol¸sgshe tµm 1paccek¸am) (Heb 10:35 – 36). For this reason strengthen your drooping hands and weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame might not become dislocated, but rather healed (Di¹ t±r paqeil´mar we?qar ja· t± paqakekul´ma cºmata !moqh¾sate, ja· tqowi±r aqh±r poie?te to?r pos·m rl_m, Vma lµ t¹ wyk¹m 1jtqap0, Qah0 d³ l÷kkom ) (Heb 12:12 – 13). Beware that you do not reject the one who is speaking; for if those who having once refused the one who gave a warning on earth did not escape, then indeed how shall we escape if we repudiate the one (who warns) from heaven. His voice, at that time, shook the earth; and now he has promised, saying: once more shall I shake not only the earth but also the heavens (bk´pete lµ paqait¶sgshe t¹m kakoOmta7 eQ c±q 1je?moi oqj 1n´vucom 1p· c/r paqaitgs²lemoi t¹m wqglat¸fomta, pok» l÷kkom Ble?r oR t¹m !p’ oqqam_m !postqevºlemoi, ox B vymµ tµm c/m 1s²keusem tºte, mOm d³ 1p¶ccektai k´cym7 5ti ûpan 1c½ se¸sy oq lºmom tµm c/m !kk± ja· t¹m oqqamºm) (Heb 12:25 – 26).

On one level, such passages reveal suggestive clues for the historical setting of Hebrews. However, the evidence is also admittedly ambiguous in the sense that it is difficult to know whether the author’s warnings are motivated by discrete knowledge of an actual situation of waning commitment or whether such warnings are simply rhetorically motivated, in keeping with a broader hortatory concern on the author’s part.16 Indeed in Hebrews 6:9 – 10 the author specifically praises aspects of the recent behavior of the recipients of the letter, commending their “work” (toO 5qcou rl_m); the love they displayed for God ja· t/r !c²pgr Hr 1mede¸nashe eQr t¹ emola aqtoO ; and their past and continued service to the saints diajom¶samter to?r "c¸oir ja· diajomoOmter. In the final analysis, perhaps the least ambiguous evidence we have for reconstructing Hebrews’ concrete historical setting can be discerned from Hebrews 10:32 – 34: But call to mind earlier days, (days) in which after having been enlightened, you endured a great struggle of sufferings: on the one hand, being publicly exposed to disgraces and afflictions, and on the other hand being fellow companions with those similarly treated. And indeed you showed 16 See De Silva, Perserverence, 264.

The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews

127

compassion for those in prison, and you gladly received the theft of your possessions with joy, since you knew that you yourselves possessed a greater and enduring possession )malilm-sjeshe d³ t±r pqºteqom Bl´qar, 1m aXr vytish´mter pokkµm %hkgsim rpele¸mate pahgl²tym, toOto l³m ameidislo?r te ja· hk¸xesim heatqifºlemoi, toOto d³ joimymo· t_m ovtyr !mastqevol´mym cemgh´mter. ja· c±q to?r deslio?r sumepah¶sate ja· tµm "qpacµm t_m rpaqwºmtym rl_m let± waq÷r pqosed´nashe cim¾sjomter 5weim 2auto»r jqe¸ttoma vpaqnim ja· l´mousam).

The situation in view in this passage would seem clearly to suggest a community marked by experiences of at least social suffering in the context of a hostile environment.17 William Lane has attempted to contextualize this passage within the discrete setting of an independent house church either in Rome or somewhere in the vicinity of Rome.18 On Lane’s view, the references to public ridicule and loss of property in 10:32 – 34 are congruent with a community experiencing persecution along the lines of social alienation, though not necessarily physical violence Oupy l´wqir aVlator !mtijat´stgte pq¹r tµm "laqt¸am !mtacymifºlemoi (see Heb 12:4). In light of such apparent social persecution, Lane argues that Hebrews 10:32 – 34 may afford a glimpse into a community that had personally experienced the consequences attendant upon the Claudian edict mentioned by Suetonius, an edict that explicitly mentions Jews as being expelled from Rome under the emperor Claudius. Although the exact details concerning what this expulsion entailed are somewhat unclear, in particular concerning the precise identity of those Jews who were expelled from Rome,19 specific

17 Mitchell, Hebrews, 11. 18 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lviii; see also William Lane, “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 196 – 224. See also Ellingworth Hebrews, 26. See also Pfitzner, Hebrews, 30 – 31. Lane’s proposal for a Roman destination is not new: See J. J. Wettstein, He Kaine Diatheke: Novum Testamentum graece (Amsterdam: Dommer, 1751 – 52) 2.383 – 446; G. Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1899) 49 ff; J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London , 1976) 205 – 213. See also F. F. Bruce’s discussion, Hebrews, 13 – 14. 19 See Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lxv. Lane argues that the edict was probably directed at specific localized synagogues comprised of Jewish Christians whose beliefs concerning the messianic significance of Jesus led to riots and unrest among disbelieving Jews. See p. lxv.

128

Chapter Six

references to loss of property and exposure to public disgrace would be consistent with the practical effects of such an edict.20 Indeed a number of discrete elements in the epistle seem at the very least to support some type of persecution. For example, in 10:36 the author insists that his addressees have need of “endurance” (rpolom/r). Similarly, in 12:7 the community is called upon to endure “discipline” or “punishment” (paide¸am). And in 13:13, the author presents the “disgrace” Christ endured as a model for the community to imitate: “So indeed let us go out to him outside the camp while bearing his disgrace” (to¸mum 1neqw¾leha pq¹r aqt¹m 5ny t/r paqelbok/r t¹m ameidisl¹m aqtoO v´qomter). The setting of a persecuted community also gives a desired contextualization to the encomium of Jewish exemplars of faith in chapter 11, particularly the list of heroic martyrs in 11:36 – 38.21 According to Lane, the community addressed by Hebrews is one that has this traumatic experience of the Claudian edict behind them, but at present faces the prospect of a far more serious crisis occasioned by the incipient Neronian persecution. Lane thus dates the Epistle to the Hebrews sometime between 64 – 68 C.E.22 Quite apart from Lane’s specific reconstruction, which we will return to in a moment, the basic proposal of a Roman destination for Hebrews has much to commend it in light of both external and internal evidence. For example, 1 Clement, a Roman document written from the church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, not only attests the first usage of Hebrews in the Roman church but reveals almost indisputable literary dependence in 36:1 – 6 to the introductory material contained in Hebrews 1:1 – 13.23 Further external corroboration for a Roman setting 20 Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 216 – 18; see also Hebrews 1 – 8, lxiv: “The description of the suffering endured in 10:32 – 34 is appropriate to the hardships borne by the Jewish Christians who were expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius in A.D. 49. Among them were Aquila and Priscilla, who arrived in Corinth c. A.D. 49 or 50 ‘because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome’ (Acts 18:2). This edict of expulsion is known from Suetonius, who published his Lives of the Caesars in A.D. 120. Commenting on Claudius’ acts with regard to certain foreign groups in Rome, he states without elaboration, Iudaeos imulsore Chresto adsidue tumultuantes Roma expulit (Claudius 25.4).” 21 See Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lxvi. 22 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lxvi. See also Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 216 – 17. 23 Lane, Hebrews, 1 – 8, lviii; see also Attridge, Hebrews, 6 – 7. The similarities with Hebrews are especially apparent when the following lines from 1 Clement are compared with Hebrews 1:4 & 1:7: “…Through him the Master was pleased to

The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews

129

is suggested by the distinctive term used to denote community leaders in Hebrews: Bcoul´mym (Heb 13:7), Bcoul´moir (Heb 13:17), Bcoul´mour (Heb 13:24). This specific term also appears in 1 Clement and in other texts traditionally associated with Rome, such as Hermas. 24 Similarly, the association of 1 Peter with Roman Christianity (see 1 Peter 5:13) hints suggestively for a Roman destination for Hebrews, since both documents share a strong sacrificial assessment of Christ.25 Perhaps the strongest piece of internal evidence for such a Roman connection, however, can be found in Hebrews 13:24, which reads: “Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy extend to you greetings.” (Asp²sashe p²mtar to»r Bcoul´mour rl_m ja· p²mtar to»r "c¸our. )sp²fomtai rl÷r oR !p¹ t/rYtak¸ar).26 As it stands, the phrase is somewhat ambiguous. The interpretive crux concerns the proper rendering of the phrase, oR !pº t/r Ytak¸ar. From a certain linguistic perspective, the phrase could suggest that the letter was dispatched from individuals already residing somewhere in Italy, i. e., somewhere in the Italian peninsula, who are sending greetings to an unspecified destination.27 The most natural meaning, however, is one of members of an Italian community presently writing outside of Italy and sending greetings back home, either to Rome directly or somewhere nearby.28

24 25 26

27 28

let us taste the knowledge that never fades; for, being Himself the radiance of His splendor, He towers as much above the angels as the title He has inherited is superior to theirs. For thus the Scripture says: He appointed winds to be His angels, and fiery flames His ministers.” 1 Clement 36: 2 – 3 in Ancient Christian Writers, trans. James A Kleist (Maryland: Westminster, 1946) 31. See Pfitzner, Hebrews, 30 – 31. Attridge, Hebrews, 10. See also Pfitzner, Hebrews, 30. Despite Hebrews’ lack of an epistolary prescript, I align myself with those scholars who see enough similarities between Hebrews 13 and what precedes it to suggest the integrity of the final chapter. See Mitchell, Hebrews ,295; Barnabas Lindars, Theology, 6 – 7; see also Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lxviii; see also Attridge, Hebrews, 13. For an argument against the integrity of Hebrews 13, see G. W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972) 267 ff. Koester sees chapter 13 as integral to the rhetorical peroration of the letter beginning in 12:28. See Koester, Hebrews, 554. Jean Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Epworth Press, 1970), xv. Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lviii. Lane points out that the phrase, !p¹ t/r Ytak¸ar in Acts 18:2 specifically denotes Rome as the place from which Aquila and Priscilla set sail for Corinth; see lviii. Harkening back to Adolf von Harnack, Ruth Hoppin suggests that Priscilla may have actually written Hebrews! See Ruth Hoppin, Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews

130

Chapter Six

Even Pamela Eisenbaum, who prefers to argue for a more general audience for the letter, ultimately thinks that Hebrews likely has some kind of connection to Rome.29 While the proposal that Hebrews was written to a Roman house church in social crisis can only be a tentative one, such a proposed setting proves helpful hermeneutically for appreciating the extent to which Hebrews’ Christology may have functioned on a pastoral level to encourage and console a community in crisis.30 Corroborative evidence for this pastoral dimension can be found in what the author conceives as constitutive of the “perfection” of the faithful. As we saw in chapter five, the perfection accorded to the faithful is intimately connected with the benefits they receive from Christ’s salvific activity. More specifically, we saw how the content of this salvation was one which comprised the themes of communion with God and inner renewal. It is time to look more closely now at the first of these themes in order to see what clues it affords both into the situation of the audience and Hebrews’ philanthropic Christology. The theme of divine communion is signaled by Hebrews’ frequent recourse to the verb, pqos´qweshai, “to approach, draw near.” As such, this verb functions to underscore a profound sense of intimacy with God.31 From the perspective of Hebrews, this intimacy with God comprises the fundamental content of what perfection amounts to for the faithful.32 The verb occurs a total of seven times in Hebrews: Therefore, let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we might obtain mercy and find grace at the time of need (pqoseqw¾leha owm let± paqqgs¸ar t` hqºm\ t/r w²qitor, Vma k²bylem 5keor ja· w²qim evqylem eQr eujaiqom bo¶heiam) (Heb 4:16). So that he is able to save absolutely those who approach God through him, since he lives at all times to make intercession for them (fhem ja· s]feim eQr t¹ pamtek³r d¼matai to»r pqoseqwol´mour di’ aqtoO t` He`, p²mtote f_m eQr t¹ 1mtucw²meim rp³q aqt_m) (Heb 7:25).

29 30 31 32

(Fort Bragg, CA: Lost Coast Press, 1997). Hebrews 11:32, however, suggests that the author was male. Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews,” 231. See Lanier Burns, “Hermeneutical Issues and Principles in Hebrews,” 593; seealso William Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, cxxxviii. See the discussion in Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 91 – 149. See N. A. Dahl. “A New and Living Way–the Approach to God According to Hebrews 10:19 – 25,” Interpretation 5 (1951): 405. See also David Peterson’s discussion: Hebrews and Perfection, 128 – 129.

The Social Setting and Audience of Hebrews

131

For since the Law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image itself of these things, it is never able to perfect those who draw near by means of the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year (Sji±m c±q 5wym b mºlor t_m lekkºmtym !cah_m, oqj aqtµm tµm eQjºma t_m pqacl²tym, jat’ 1miaut¹m ta?r aqta?r hus¸air $r pqosv´qousim eQr t¹ digmej³r oqd´pote d¼matai to»r pqoseqwol´mour tekei_sai) (Heb 10:1). Let us approach with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from the consciousness of evil and with our body washed with pure water (pqoseqw¾leha let± !kghim/r jaqd¸ar 1m

pkgqovoq¸ô p¸steyr Neqamtisl´moi t±r jaqd¸ar !p¹ sumeid¶seyr pomgq÷r ja· kekousl´moi t¹ s_la vdati jahaq`) (Heb 10:22).

But apart from faith it is impossible to please (God); for it is necessary for the one who approaches God to believe that God exists and that there is a reward for those who seek him out (wyq·r d³ p¸steyr !d¼matom eqaqest/sai7 pisteOsai c±q de? t¹m pqoseqwºlemom t` he` fti 5stim ja· to?r 1jfgtoOsim aqt¹m lishapodºtgr c¸metai) (Heb 11:6).

For you have not approached something to be touched, nor a burning fire, nor darkness, gloom, nor storm (Oq c±q pqosekgk¼hate xgkavyl´m\ ja· jejaul´m\ puq· ja· cmºv\ ja· fºv\ ja· hu´kkg) (Heb 12:18). But you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels in festal gathering ( !kk± pqosekgk¼hate Si½m eqei ja· pºkei heoO f_mtor,Yeqousakµl 1pouqam¸\, ja· luqi²sim !cc´kym, pamgc¼qei) (Heb 12:22).

It is interesting to interpret these passages in light of both the thesis of a Roman destination and what we have seen thus far of Hebrews’ philanthropic Christology. If indeed the community addressed in Hebrews was experiencing some form of persecution, then the theme of drawing near to God would have been very consoling to hear. In such a setting, the affirmation that God’s presence was close at hand in time of need (Heb 4:16) and that Christ pleads on behalf of the faithful in heaven (Heb 7:25) would be quite apposite for a community enduring the brunt of social alienation and isolation attendant upon an experience of persecution. This sense of closeness and communion with God in the face of an antagonistic setting is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in Hebrews’ choice of Psalm 117 in 13:6 near the conclusion of the letter: “The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid. What will a person do to me?” ( j¼qior 1lo· boghºr, ja· oq vobgh¶solai, t¸ poi¶sei loi %mhqypor.) This theme of approaching God to live in communion and intimacy with the divine confirms the viability of a philanthropic Christology in

132

Chapter Six

the sense that the faithful can only draw near and approach God, because Christ formerly drew near to them in as close and intimate a way as possible. In both instances the concept of philanthropia is suggested in the overarching idea of communion and intimacy. On a somewhat similar note, William Lane has argued that the explicit concern of the Christology of Hebrews is consistently pastoral. It presents Jesus as the one who identifies with his people and represents them as their abiding advocate.33 Seen in terms of a philanthropic portrait of Christ, we might put this another way, namely, the approach of the faithful to commune with God is the reciprocal movement to Christ’s own approach to the faithful borne out of a commitment of divine love and concern.

The Literary Character of Hebrews In the preceding section we have attempted to contextualize the Christology of Hebrews in light of the proposed social setting of an early Christian house church undergoing persecution in or near the vicinity of Rome. The rationale for such a contextualization arises from the assumption that Hebrews’ Christology likely functions on a pastoral level to console a community experiencing some form of social distress. With this goal of contextualization in mind, it is important to assess the broad contours of Hebrews’ literary form and genre as a complement to our historical investigation. Such an assessment is requisite in order to explore how the literary character of the epistle may also provide evidence for the appropriateness of the philanthropic presentation of Christ we have been arguing for. Indeed, the larger rationale for such a literary analysis stems from the methodological assumption that the categories of literary form and genre bear more than a tangential relationship to a text. Rather, they constitute a significant aspect of a text’s overall meaning.34 If indeed Hebrews is working with a philanthropic presentation of Christ, it is hermeneutically valuable to discern the ways in which this intention is reflected not only in the epistle’s historical setting, but also in its form and genre. 33 Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, cxliii. 34 On the importance of the subject of literary form and genre as it relates to a text’s meaning, see Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 13.

The Literary Character of Hebrews

133

On the level of pure literary expression, the Greek of Hebrews represents some of the best examples of what might be described as an Atticizing style.35 Indeed, the patent literary artistry of the letter suggests that the author likely received some form of rhetorical education. Such artistry is revealed in a number of ways. For example, the author of Hebrews evinces a decided preference for complex periodic sentence structure (see Heb 1:1 – 4; 2:2 – 4; 3:12 – 15; 5:1 – 3, 7 – 10).36 Also apparent is an abiding concern for the euphonic effect of word arrangement, i. e., the alliteration of words beginning with p in Hebrews 1:1: pokuleq_r ja· pokutqºpyr p²kai b he¹r kak¶sar to?r patq²sim (see also 11:28; 12:11). One also finds in Hebrews 11:23 – 28 a very elaborate use of anaphora in the context of an extended encomium of Old Testament Jewish heroes.37 To these more technical details illustrative of the mechanics of rhetorical facility, we might also add the various metaphors employed by the author that counted as stock literary images in a rhetorical repertoire: marine imagery (Heb 6:19), agricultural images (Heb 6:7 – 8; 12:11), and educational metaphors (Heb 5:12 – 14; 12:7 – 11).38 In terms of Hebrews’ placement relative to the broad spectrum of the three primary classifications of Greco-Roman oratorical genres: deliberative, forensic, and epideitic, Lindars argues that Hebrews is deliberative.39 Hebrews seems actually to share elements of both epideictic and deliberative rhetoric,40 but most closely resembles the epideictic variety.41 These different oratorical genres were distinguished according to the desired effect that was sought in relation to an audience. Thus, politically motivated deliberative rhetoric functioned to convince an audience to pursue a discrete course of action in the future. By contrast, the forensic oratory of the law courts functioned to 35 Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 212. 36 Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 212. 37 David Black, “Literary Artistry in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Filologi Neotestamentaria 7 (1994): 43 – 45. In terms of anaphora, Hebrews employs the word p¸stei at the beginning of eighteen sentences in chapter 11; see Aune’s discussion, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 212. 38 Attridge provides a helpful summary: see Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 20 – 21; see Ceslas Spicq for a more comprehensive listing, l’ptre aux Hbreux I, 361 – 66. 39 Lindars, Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews, NTS 35, 1989, 383 40 Issacs, Sacred Space, 187. 41 Atridge, Hebrews, 14

134

Chapter Six

persuade an audience to reach a decision concerning a past event. Epideictic or demonstrative rhetoric was essentially celebratory oratory, which functioned primarily to celebrate a present event and to foster a sense of shared values.42 In keeping with the character of epideictic rhetoric as celebratory oration, Hebrews both celebrates the theological significance of Christ, and moreover attempts to exhort its audience to hold on to commitments attendant upon their faith.43 The prevailing aspect of celebration inherent to epideictic oratory is especially apparent in Hebrews 10:19 – 22, the section which culminates the high priestly presentation of Christ: Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have the boldness of an entrance way into the sanctuary by means of the blood of Jesus, an entrance which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is his flesh, and since we have a great High Priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from the consciousness of evil and with our body washed with pure water (=womter owm, !dekvo¸, paqqgs¸am eQr tµm eUsodom t_m "c¸ym 1m t` aVlati YgsoO, Dm 1meja¸misem Bl?m bd¹m pqºsvatom ja· f_sam di± toO jatapet²slator, toOt’ 5stim t/r saqj¹r aqtoO, ja· Req´a l´cam 1p· t¹m oWjom toO heoO, pqoseqw¾leha let± !kghim/r jaqd¸ar 1m pkgqovoq¸ô p¸steyr Neqamtisl´moi t±r jaqd¸ar kekousl´moi t¹ s_la vdati jahaq`).

!p¹ sumeid¶seyr pomgq÷r ja·

Beyond this celebratory dimension, Hebrews shares a number of other features characteristic of epideictic rhetoric. Most important is the use of amplification through comparison and the use of praise and blame. The former can be seen in the explicit contrast made by the author between Moses’ status as a servant and Christ’s status as Son (Heb 3:2 – 6) and between Christ’s High Priesthood and the levitical priests (9:6 – 14). The use of praise and blame appear in Herbews 5:11 – 12 and 6:9 – 10, respectively.44 With respect to the question of literary structure per se, various scholars have noted the profoundly homiletic tone that is generated by 42 Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 198. 43 See Harold Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (kºcor paqajk¶seyr): The Possible Location of, and Socialization In, the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Semeia 50 (1990): 214; see also Victor Pfitzner, “The Rhetoric of Hebrews,” 4; For a description of epideictic rhetoric see George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 19. 44 See Pfitzner, “The Rhetoric of Hebrews,” 4; see also Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily,” 221.

The Literary Character of Hebrews

135

Hebrews’ sustained and artful manner of weaving passages of exhortation within the larger expository sections of the epistle.45 Harold Attridge has provided a very helpful and concise four-fold division of this pattern. According to Attridge, the first division of Hebrews is largely christological in scope (1:1 – 2:18); the second largely paraenetic (3:1 – 3:16); the third christological again (5:1 – 10:18); and the fourth paraenetic (10:10 – 12:29).46 The frequency of these paraenetic sections highlights the pastoral intention of the epistle and gives weight to the increasingly scholarly consensus that it is more accurate to describe Hebrews as a homiletical sermon than as a letter.47 Indeed, Hebrews appears as an atypical letter when viewed against the backdrop of customary epistolary characteristics current in the first century.48 While Hebrews does conclude in chapter 13 with formal features typical of an ancient letter, such as personal remarks and a farewell period (13:23 – 24), the absence of an epistolary prescript and a thanksgiving period is conspicuous.49 In lieu of an epistolary prescript, the letter opens with a complex periodic sentence celebrative of the majesty of the Son. The

45 The pattern of skillful alternation between exhortation and theological exposition in Hebrews has been noted by numerous scholars: For a classic treatment see Albert Vanhoye, La structure litraire de l’pitre aux Hbreux (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963). For more contemporary treatments see Lanier Burns, “Hermeneutical Issues and Principles in Hebrews,” 593; John Walters, “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” Asbury Theological Journal 51 (1996): 60; Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 392; Attridge, Hebrews, 19 – 21. 46 Attridge, Hebrews, 15. 47 See F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 389; James Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews,” Novum Testamentum 11 (‘1969): 261; Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Subsidia Biblica 12 (Roma, 1989) 2 – 3; see also Lanier Burns, “Hermeneuatical Issues and Principles in Hebrews,”591; see also Michael Cahill, “A Home for the Homily: An Approach to Hebrews,” Irish Theological Quarterly 60 (1994): 141; see also William Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28 (1985): 13. 48 See W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973) 21 – 47. 49 William Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 13; see also Albert Vanhoye, Situation du Christ, 10. Compare to 1 Corinthians, in which both a salutation including superscription, adscription, and salutation occur (1 Cor 1:1 – 3) along with a thanksgiving in 1:4.

136

Chapter Six

entire period strikes an immediate homiletic chord with its image of God speaking kak¶sar to the community in the person of the Son.50 A number of scholars have argued that the designation of Hebrews as a sermon or homily in written form is confirmed by the author’s own description of his correspondence as a “word of exhortation” (kºcor t/r paqajk¶seyr) in Hebrews 13:22: “I urge you brethren to endure this word of exhortation, for I have written to you in few words” (paqajak_ d³ rl÷r, !dekvo¸, !m´weshe toO kºcou t/r paqajk¶seyr, ja· c±q di± bqaw´ym 1p´steika rl?m). Scholars who argue for the sermonic genre of Hebrews suggest that this designation may point to a fixed form for denoting a sermon in Jewish-Hellenistic and early Christian communities.51 Several instances from the New Testament are frequently brought forward as evidence for construing this phrase kºcor t/r paqajk¶seyr with what essentially amounts to a homily.52 In Acts 13:15, leaders of the synagogue at Antioch invite Paul and his companions to address such a “word of exhortation” to the congregation at the conclusion of the reading of the law and prophets: And after the reading of the law and the prophets the officials of the synagogue sent for them and said: Now then brothers, if there is someone among you who has a word of exhortation for the people, speak it (let± d³ tµm !m²cmysim toO mºlou ja· t_m pqovgt_m !p´steikam oR !qwisum²cycoi pq¹r aqto»r k´comter7 %mdqer !dekvo¸, eU t¸r 1stim 1m rl?m kºcor paqajk¶seyr pq¹r t¹m k²om, k´cete).

According to Lane, the expression “word of exhortation” appears to have been an idiomatic designation for the homily, or edifying discourse, which followed the reading from the Law and the Prophets in the Hellenistic synagogues,“53 a proposal recently revisited by

50 Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 13 – 14. 51 See Lane, Hebrews 1 – 8, lxx; James Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of Hebrews,” 261; Lanier Burns, “Hermeneutical Issues and Principles in Hebrews,” 591; Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review 77:3 – 4 (1984): 277 – 99; C. Clifton Black II, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills,” Harvard Theological Review 81:1 (1988): 1 – 18. 52 Hermut Löhr, “Reflections of Rhetorical Terminology in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Method, 208. 53 Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 13.

The Literary Character of Hebrews

137

Gabriela Gelardini.54 Similar evidence for linking this notion of exhortation with a sermon may also be visible in the pseudonymous letter of 1 Timothy 4:13, in which Paul asks his readers to devote themselves to “reading”, to “exhortation” and to “teaching” until he arrives: 6yr 5qwolai pqºsewe t0 !macm¾sei, t0 paqajk¶sei, t0 didasjak¸ô. Such exhortation may have functioned as the exposition and application of Scripture read to the community.55 What makes the foregoing problematic is that our earliest evidence for synagogue sermons comes from such limited instances in the New Testament where the sermon seems to function to give further meaning into the passages read at the service. We actually know very little about the form and content of sermons or synagogue homilies prior to 200 C.E.56 According to William Stegner, the most common type of sermon in the synagogue post 200 C.E. was what was called the “proem,” which was essentially a short homily that introduced the Torah reading of the week.57 In its fundamental character, the proem was not so much an explication of the Law or the Prophets, but instead utilized a phrase from outside the Pentateuch as a segue into the Torah text to be clarified at the end of the service.58 By contrast, the little evidence we have concerning the form of the sermon in the first century seems to show that the sermon served fundamentally as an explication of the biblical text, as seems to be the case in Acts 13:15 – 16 and perhaps also Luke 4:16 – 21.59 Despite such problems, Lawrence Wills believes that the form of preaching in the early church can nonetheless be discerned in some measure, and he argues that the “word of exhortation” was in fact a fixed form of the early Christian sermon.60 Wills draws upon Acts 54 Gabriela Gelardini, “ Hebrews: An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha beAv: Its function, its basis, its theological interpretation,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, 107 – 127. 55 Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 13 – 14. 56 William Richard Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily.” In GrecoRoman Literature in the New Testament. SL5BS 21. ed. David Aune. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988: 51. See also, Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon,” 277. The pioneering study of the form of the sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity is H Thyen, Der Stil des jdische-hellenistischen Homilee. FRLANT 47. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955). 57 Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily,” 52. 58 Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily,” 52 – 53. 59 Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Sermon,”52. 60 Wills, “The Form of the Sermon,” 280.

138

Chapter Six

13:14 – 41 for much of his argument as to what constituted a synagogue homily. According to Wills, the early synagogue sermon contained three basic components. First was the presence of a selection of Scripture citations which counted as authoritative exempla brought forward to ground a subsequent theological point. In the context of Acts 13, such exempla includes the recounting of salvation history in vv.16 – 33, as well as the explicit biblical citations in 13:33 – 35, 41; 2) a conclusion stating the significance of such authoritative biblical exempla signaled by the inferential particle owm (Acts 13:38); and 3) a concluding exhortation or application marked by a paraenectic or hortatory quality signaled by the phrase of warning (bk´pete owm… (Acts 13:40).61 Wills argues that the discernible pattern of progression of exempla, conclusion, exhortation is a feature of Hebrews and may in fact constitute the concrete form of the author’s “word of exhortation” mentioned in 13:22.62 According to Wills, the cycle is evident in a number of areas in Hebrews, particularly 1:5 – 2:1. In 1: 5 – 13 various scriptural passages are brought together to highlight Christ’s superior stature to the angels. Verse 14 then establishes a conclusion based upon these exempla concerning the ministering status of the angels. Finally, in 2:1 we see explicit exhortation: “For this reason we must all the more devote ourselves to what was heard lest we drift away.”63 While not going as far as Wills in describing with such precision a fixed form, Attridge has argued that as an example of epideictic oratory Hebrews essentially constitutes a sub genre of paraenetic literature, a genre which Attridge describes as homilectic or simply “paraclesis.”64 Within such a genre, according to Attridge, a dominant motif of exhortation is thoroughly grounded in the exposition of traditional texts and or traditional images of Christ. In the case of Hebrews, such a homilectic genre has a clear pastoral intent, namely to reinforce the identity of a community perhaps experiencing some form of social ostracism.65 Attridge believes that this homilectic form may have

61 62 63 64 65

Wills, “The Form of the Sermon,” 279. Wills, “The Form of the Sermon,” 280. Wills, “The Form of the Sermon,” 281. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily,” 217. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily,” 219 – 223.

Conclusion

139

emerged out of the Hellenistic synagogue setting where an ancient text was given new meaning.66 Although we cannot be sure that there existed something like a fixed sermonic form such as Wills suggests, the preceding does seem to confirm the essentially exhortative and homilectic intentionality of Hebrews. In terms of overall literary shape, if Hebrews can best be described as a kind of homily with a pastoral thrust, as Attridge argues, then the argument for the viability of a philanthropic presentation makes sense on a literary, as well as upon a historical level. Since the author’s intention is to console and exhort his readers, a homily or sermon would seem to be the most fitting genre for this ultimately pastoral intention.

Conclusion This study has examined the concept of Jesus’ perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews in relation to the broader theological themes of divine beneficence and divine philanthropia. Three times in Hebrews Jesus is described as being perfected (Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28), and in two of these instances (Heb 2:10; 5:8 – 9), the author explicitly links the theme of Jesus’ suffering to the content of his perfection. By examining representative selections of Greek non-literary papyri from the first century, this study has argued that the customary application of the Greek verb tekeiºy to denote the idea of legal notarization of a public document suggests the more comprehensive idea of official or definitive attestation. Informed by such a notion of perfection as official or definitive attestation, this study has argued that the language of Christ’s perfection in Hebrews functions as a christological grammar for reflecting upon the character of Christ. Far from being remotely transcendent, Jesus is characterized instead by divine beneficence and philanthropia, by a motivation to draw near to the community of the faithful gathered around his memory. This study has demonstrated the cogency of this proposal based on exegetical grounds, the literary character of Hebrews as an epistolary homily, and the social setting of Hebrews as one characterized by social distress and/or persecution in or near the vicinity of the city of Rome.

66 Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily,” 217 – 219.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackermann, Emil. “De Senecae Hercule Oetaeo,” in Philogus Supplementband 10 (1907): 323 – 428. Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. Jesus’ Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the Passion (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg, 2004. Anderson, David R. The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews. Studies in Biblical Literature 21. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Apollodorus. The Library. vol 1. Trans. James George Frazier. London: Heinemann, 1921. Aristeas to Philocrates. ed. and Trans. Moses Hadas (New York: Harper, 1951. Aristotle. Metaphysics I – X. Trans. Hugh Tredennick. London: Heinemann, 1933 – 1935. __. Generation of Animals. Trans. A.L. Peck. London: Heinemann, 1953. __. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. H. Rackham. London: Heinemann, 1934. Athanassakis, Apostolos N. The Orphic Hymns: Text, Translation, and Notes SBLTT 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. __. “Liberating Death’s Captives: Reconsideration of an Early Christian Myth.” In Gnosticism & the Early Christian World. ed. James E. Goerhing, Charles W. Hedrick, Jack T. Sanders, Hans Dieter Betz. Sonoma, Calif: Polebridge Press, 1990. __. “Paraenesis in a Homily (kºcor paqajk¶seyr): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Semeia 50 (1990): 211 – 226. Aune, David E. “Heracles and Christ: Heracles Imagery in the Christology of Early Christianity.” In Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, Wayne Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. __. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Library of Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Bakker, A. “Was Christ an Angel? A Study of Early Christian Docetism,” Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 32 (1933): 255 – 65. Beare, F. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. London, 1959. Behr, Charles. P. Aelius Aristides, the Complete Works. Leiden: Brill, 1981, 1986. Black, C Clifton. “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response top Lawrence Wills,” Harvard Theological Review 81:1 1988): 1 – 18. Black, David. A. “Literary Artistry in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Filologi Neotestamentaria 7 (1994): 43 – 51.

Bibliography

141

Borgen, P. “Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings: Some Observations.” In Biblical and Humane: A Festschrift for John F. Priest. ed. Linda Bennett Elder, David L. Barr, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996: 173 – 88. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Buchanan, G. W. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972 Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Trans. John Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985. Burkert, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. Burns, Lanier. “Hermeneutical Issues and Principles in Hebrews.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996): 587 – 607. Cahill, M. “A Home for the Homily: An Approach to Hebrews,” Irish Theological Quarterly 60 (1994): 141 – 48. Caird, George B. “Just Men Made Perfect,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review 191 (1966): 89 – 98. Carlston, C. “The Vocabulary of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978: 133 – 48. Clark, N. “Reading the Book.2. The Letter to the Hebrews,” Expository Times 108 (1996): 37 – 40. Cody, Aelred. Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as Son of Man,” Harvard Theological Review 80: 4 (1987): 391 – 407. Coste, J. “Notion greque et notion biblique de la ‘souffrance éducatrice’ (A propos d’Hébreux, v, 8,” Recherches de science religieuse 43 (1955): 481 – 523. Cotter, Wendy. Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity : A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories. New York: Routledge, 1999. Cullmann, O. The Christology of the New Testament. trans. Shirley C. Guthrie, Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959. Cunningham, J. “The Humanity of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal from the Radical Reformation 6 (1997): 4 – 19. Dahl, Nils. A. “A New and Living Way,” Interpretation 5 (1951): 401 – 412. Dey, Lala K. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBL Dissertation Series 25. Scholars Press, 1974. DeSilva, David A. Perserverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Dibelius, M. “Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief.” In Bottschaft und Geschichte, vol. 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1956: 160 – 76. Donelson, Lewis R. From Hebrews to Revelation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2001. Doty, W. G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973. Duckworth, George E. The Complete Roman Drama vol. 2. New York: Random House, 1942. Duerksen, Paul D. “Images of Jesus Christ as Perfect High Priest for God’s People,” Quarterly Review 14 (1994): 321 – 336.

142

Bibliography

Dumbrell, William. J. “The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect,” The Evangelical Quarterly 48 (1976): 154 – 59. Du Plessis, P. J. TEKEIOS : The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament. Kampen, 1959. Edelstein, Emma J and Ludwig Edelstein. Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. Rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1998. Eisenbaum, Pamela.“Locating Hebrews Within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights ed. Gabriella Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commmentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Epictetus. Discourses, vols. 1 & 2. Trans. W.A. Oldfather. London: Heinemann, 1926 – 1928. Euripides. Alcestis, vol. 4. Trans. Arthur S. Way. London: Heinemann, 1912 __. The Madness of Hercules, vol. 3. Trans. Arthur S. Way. London: Heinemann, 1912. Farnell, Lewis. Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford: Clarendon, 1921. Fayum Towns and their Papyri. ed. & Trans. Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, and David G. Hograth. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1900. Feld. Helmut. “Der Hebräerbrief: Literarische Form, religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, theologische Fragen,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der rçmischen Welt II. 25. 4 (1987): 3550. Fitch. John G. Seneca’s Hercules Furens: A Critical Text with Introduction And Commentary. Cornell University Press, 1987. Papyrus Fouad I. 34 ed. A. Bataille, O. Guéraud, P. Jouget, N. Lewis, H. Marrou, J.and W. G. Waddell. Imprimerie de l’Institut francais D’Archéologie orientale. Le Caire, 1939. Galinsky, G. Karl. The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell, 1972. Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. Gelardini, Gabriela.” Hebrews: An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha beAv: Its function, its basis, its theological interpretation,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods. Grant, Michael. Myths of the Greeks and Romans. Revised ed. Meridian, 1995. Grässer, Erich. An Die Hebräer. 3 vols. EKK 17. Zürich. Benzinger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990 – 97. __. “Der Hebräerbrief 1938 – 1963,” Theologische Rundschau 30, 1964. Guthrie, Donald. The Letter to the Hebrews An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Guthrie, George H. “The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Novum Testamentum Supplement 73. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Guthrie, W. K. C. The Greeks and Their Gods. London: Methuen, 1950. Häring, T. Über eininge Grundgedanken des Hebräerbriefs,” Monatschrift fr Pastoraltheologie 17 (1920/21): 260 – 76.

Bibliography

143

Hay David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville, Abingdon, 1973 Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Trans. A. W. Heathcote, P. J. Allcock. London: Epworth Press, 1970. Herodotus. vol 1. Trans. A. D. Godley. London: Heinemann, 1920. Hoekma, Anthony. “The Perfection of Christ in Hebrews,” Calvin Theological Journal, 9 (1974), 36 – 37. Höistad, Ragner. Cynic Hero and Cynic King. Uppsala, 1948. Hoppin, Ruth. Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Fort Bragg, CA: Lost Coast Press, 1997. Horbury, William. “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (1983): 43 – 71. Hugedé, Norbert. Le sacerdoce du fils: commentaire de L’ptre aux Hbreux. Paris: Éditions Fischbacher, 1983. Hughes, G. Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: University Press, 1979. Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to The Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Hurst, L. D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. SNTSMS 65. Cambridge University Press, 1990. Isaacs, Marie. E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. __. “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Heythrop Journal 38 (1997): 51 – 62. Isocrates. To Philip, vol. 1. Trans. George Norlin. London: Heinemann, 1928. Jeremias, J. “Heb. 5, 7 – 10. ZNW 44. (1952 – 53): 109 – 110. Jewett, Robert. Letter to the Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005. __. The Writings of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Johnsson, William G. “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, 2 (1978): 239 – 51. Johnston, G. “Christ as Archegos,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 381 – 85. Josephus. Against Apion II. Trans. Théodore Blum. Paris: Société d’édition, 1972. __. Jewish Antiquities, vol. 8. Trans. Ralph Marcus. London: Heinemann, 1963. __. Jewish War, vol. 3 trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; London: Heinemann, 1928. Kaibel, G. Epigrammata Graeca (Berlin, 1878). Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God: An Investigaion of the Letter to the Hebrews. Trans. Roy A. Harrisville, Irving L. Sandberg. Minneapolis: Augsburgh Press, 1984. Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Kennedy, G. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

144

Bibliography

Knox, Wilfred L. “The ‘Divine Hero’ Christology in the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1948): 228 – 49. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kögel, J. “Der Begriff tekeioOm im Hebräerbrief im Zussamenhang mit dem neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch.” In Theologische Studien fr M. Khler. Leipzig, 1905: 37 – 68. Konkel, A. “The Sacrifice of Obedience,” Didaskalia 2 (1991): 2 – 11. Kurianal, James. Jesus Our High Priest: Psalm 110,4 as the Sub-structure of Heb 5,1 – 7, 28. European University Studies 23/693. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000. Lane, W. “A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28 (1985): 13 – 18. __. “Detecting Divine Wisdom in Hebrews 1:1 – 4.” In The New Testament Student and His Field. ed. John H. Skilton, Curtiss A. Ladley. New Jersey: Phillipsburgh, 1982. __. Hebrews 1 – 8. World Biblical Commentary. Dallas: World Books, 1991. __. Hebrews: A Call to Commitment. Philadelphia: Hendrickson, 1985. __.“Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement.” In Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. ed. Karl P. Donfried, Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998: 196 – 244 La Rondelle, Hans Karl. Perfection and Perfectionism: A Dogmatic-Ethical Study of Biblical Interpretation and Phenomenal Perfectionism. Kampen, 1971. Le Déaut, Roger. “VIKAMHQYPIA dans la littérature grecque jusqu’au nouveau testament.” In Mlanges Eugne Tisserant vol.1. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964: 291 – 92. Leuken, Wilhelm. Michael: Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der jdischen und morgen lndisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898. Lindars, Barnabas. “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 382 – 406. __. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge University Press, 1991. Loader, William R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebrerbriefes.WMANT 53; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1981. Löhr Hermut. “Reflections of Rhetorical Terminology in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods. Long, Thomas G. Hebrews. Interpretation Series. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997. Manson, Thomas W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951. __. “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 32 (1949): 1 – 17. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

Bibliography

145

Michel, Otto. “Die Lehre von der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach der Anschauung des Hebräerbriefes,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken: eine Zeitschrift fr das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie 106 (1934/35): 333 – 55. Moulton, J. H. & Milligan George, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. Hodder and Stoughton, 1930. Milligan, G. The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh, 1899. P Mich. Papyri from Karanis, Third Series Michigan Papyri, vol. 9. ed. Elinor M. Husselman. Case Western Reserve University, 1971. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. Sacra Pagina 13. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007. __.“The Use of pq´peim and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 681 – 701. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary. Reprint. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963. Moingt, J. “La fin du sacrifice,” Lumire et vie 43 (1994): 15 – 31. Müller, P. G. WQISTOS AQWGCOS. Der religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Hintergrund einer neutestamentlichen Christusprdikation. Frankfurt: Lang, 1973. Mulloor, A. “The Pioneer of Salvation and the Merciful and Faithful High Priest,” Jeevadhara 27 (1997): 123 – 32. P.Oxy 1. Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 1 – 12, ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell & Arthur S. Hunt. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898. P.Oxy 22. Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 22, ed. & trans. E. Lobel & C.H. Roberts; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1954. P. Oxy 27. Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 27, ed. & trans. E.G Turner, John Rea, L. Koenen, Jose M Fernandez Ponar. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1962 Philostratus. The Epistle of Appolonius, vol. 2. Trans. F. C. Conybeare. London: Heinemann, 1912. Pelletier, André. “La philanthropia de tous les jours chez les écrivains juifs hellénisés,” Pagamisme, Juday ¨sme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique. Paris: éditions E. de Boccard, 1978). Peterson, David G. “The Situation of the ‘Hebrews’ (5:11 – 6:12),” The Reformed Theological Review 35 (1976): 14 – 21. __. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cambridge University Press, 1982. Pfister, Friedrich. “Heracles and Christ,” in Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 34 (1937): 42 – 60. Pfitzner, Victor C. Hebrews. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press1997. __. “The Rhetoric of Hebrews,” Lutheran Theological Journal 27 (1993): 3 – 12. Philo. Philo. Trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker et al.. 10 vols. London: Heinemann, 1929 – 1962. Plato. Leges, vol. 10. Trans R.G. Bury; London: Heinemann, 1926. __. Phaedrus, vol. 1. Trans. Harold North Fowler. London: Heinemann, 1914. __. Politicus, vol. 3. Trans. Harold N. Fowler. London: Heinneman, 1925. __. Republic, vol. 2. Trans. Paul Shorey; London: Heinemann, 1963.

146

Bibliography

__. Symposium, vol. 5. Trans. W.R. Lamb; London: Heinemann, 1925. Plutarch. Caesar 34, Lives, vol. 7. Trans. Bernadotte Perrin; London: Heinemann, 1928 __. Consolatio ad uxorem, Moralia, vol 7. Trans. Phillip H. De Lacey & Benedict Einarson. London: Heinemann, 1959. __. De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute, Moralia, vol.4. Trans. Frank Cole Babbitt; London: Heinemann, 1936. __.De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos, Moralia, vol. 13. Trans. Harold Cherniss. London: Heinemann, 1976. __. De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1051F, Moralia, vol. 13. Trans. Harold Cherniss. London: Heinemann, 1976. __. Moralia, vol. 9. Trans. Edwin L. Minar, F. H. Sandbach, W. C. Helbold. London: Heinemann, 1941. Pursiful, Darell J. The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews. Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993. Riggenbach, E. “Der Begriff der teke¸ysir im Hebräerbrief Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Einwirkung der Mysterienreligion auf Sprache und Gedankenwelt des Neuen Testaments,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 34 (1923): 184 – 95. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. London, 1976. Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. PRyl II. Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library Volume II, Documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, ed. J. De M. Johnson, Victor Martin, Arhtur S. Hunt. Manchester: University press, 1915. P Ryl 4. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library at Manchester ed. C. H. Roberts and E. G. Turner. Manchester University Press, 1952. Salevao, Iutisone. Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: the Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe ( Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 219, 2002) Saucy, M. “Exaltation Christology in Hebrews: What Kind of Reign?” Trinity Journal 14NS (1993): 41 – 62. Schenker, A. “Sacrifices anciens, sacrifice nouveau dans l’Épître aux Hébreux,” Lumire et vie 43 (1994): 71 – 76. Scholer, J.M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Silva, M. “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 60 – 71. Sophocles. Electra vol. 2. Trans. F. Storr. London: Heinemann, 1909. Spicq, C. L’ptre aux Hbreux, Études Bibliques. vols. 1 – 2. Paris: Gebalda, 1952 – 53. Stedman, Ray C. Hebrews. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Stegner, W. “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily.” In Greco-Roman Literature and The New Testament. ed. David E. Aune. SL5BS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988: 51 – 69.

Bibliography

147

Swetnam, J. “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews,” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 261 – 69. Tebtunis Papyri, Part 2, ed. & trans. Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, & J. Gilbart Smyly; (London: Henry Frowde, 1902). Thucydides. vol. 3. Trans. Charles Foster Smith; London: Heinneman, 1921. Thyen, H. Der Stil des jdische-hellenistischen Homilee. FRLANT 47. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. Vanhoye, A. “La ‘teleiôsis’ du Christ: point capital de la christologie sacerdotale d’Hébreux,” New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 321 – 38. __. La structure littraire de l’ptre aux Hbreux. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963. __. Our Priest is Christ: The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews. __. Situation du Christ: ptre aux Hbreux 1 – 2. Lectio Divina 58. Paris: Cerf, 1969. __. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Subsidia Biblica 12. Rome, 1989. Veldhuizen, Milo V. “Moses: A Model of Hellenistic Philanthropia,” The Reformed Review 38 (1985): 215 – 224. Walters, John R. Perfection in New Testament Theology: Ethics and Eschatology in Relational Dynamic. Mellen Biblical Press Series 25, 1995. Walters, J. “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” Asbury Theological Journal, 51 (1996): 59 – 70. Weiss, B. Handbuch ber den Brief an die Hebrer. Meyer K. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888/1897. Westcott, Brooke F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Wettstein, J. J. He Kaine Diatheke: Novum Testamentum graece. Amsterdam. Dommer, 1751 – 52. 2. 283 – 446. Wikgren, A. “Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 6 (1960): 159 – 67. Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. Wills, Lawrence. “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review 77: 3 – 4 (1984): 277 – 99. Windisch, H. Der Hebrerbrief. Tübingen, 1931. Winston, D. “Philo’s Ethical Theory.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der rçmischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984: 372 – 416. Xenophon, Cyropaedia. Trans. Walter Miller. 2 vols. London: Heinemann, 1968 & 1979. Yadin, A. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Scripta hierasolymitana 4 (1958): 36 – 47.

Index of Ancient Sources Biblical Sources Old Testament Genesis 1&2 93 14:17-20 115 Exodus 25:40 29:9 29:29 29:33 29:35

10, 99 111, 115 131

Nehemiah 6:3, 16 93 12 13 13 13

Leviticus 4:3-12 109 4:5 13 8:33 14 16:1-3 105 16:6-14 109 16:11-15 102 16:32 14 21:10 14,16n25 Numbers 3:3 14 63 65

Jeremiah 31:34

117

12n25

2 Chronicles 8:16 12n25 Judith 10:8

12n25

4 Maccabees 7:15 12n25 Sirach 7:25, 32 12n25 7:32 12n25 50:5-11 107 50:19 12n25 40:2 65 45:6-13 107 Wisdom 2:23-24

Isaiah 8:17-18 42:13

Ezekiel 27:11

110:1 110:4 117

65

New Testament Matthew 26:36-46 112 Mark 14:32-42

112

12n25

Psalms 2:7 111 8 45, 46, 48, 49, 62, 66 22 63 110 99n4

Luke 2:43 (5n4) 13:32 (5n4) 4:16-21 137 22:40-46 112

149

Index of Ancient Sources

John 4:34 5:36 17:4 17:23 19:28

4:17-18 5 n4 5 n4 5 n4 5n4 5 n4

Acts 3:15 8n12, 49 5:30-31 49 5:31 8 n12 20:24 5n4 27:3 70 28:2 70 13:15 136 13:15-16 137 13:14-41 138 16-33 138 13:33-35 138 13:38 138 13:40 138 13:41 138 18:2 128n20, 129n28 1 Corinthians 1:1-4 135n49 Philippians 2:6 50 3:12 5 n4 1Timothy 4:13 137 Titus 3:3-5 3:4

71 70, 71

James 2:22

5 n4

1Peter 5:13

129

1 John 2:5 5n4 4:12, 5 n4

5 n4

Hebrews 1:1 100, 102, 117, 133 1:1-2 38, 41 1:1-4 133 1:1-13 128 1:1-2:18 135 1:2 38, 96, 101, 116 1:2-3 92 1:1-3 1 1:3 10, 62, 99, 99n4, 102 1:3c 47 1:3d 47 1:3-4 2 1:4 1n3, 17, 45, 100, 128n23 1:5-13 138 1:5-2:1 138 1:6 45 1:7 128n23 1:13 99n4, 102 1:14 46 2:1 123, 125, 138 2:1-3 38, 41, 125 2:1-4 45 2:2 39, 92 2:2-3a 39 2:2-4 133 2:3 38, 65 2:4 1n3 2:5 45, 46 2:5-8 45 2: 5-18 3, 45, 67, 69, 103, 114 2:6 66, 85 2:7 46 2:7-8 46 2:8-9 46, 62 2:9 6, 47, 49, 53, 60, 62, 64 2:10 1, 1n1, 2, 7, 8, 8n12, 9, 11, 15n31, 16, 19, 22, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 62, 63, 67, 69, 112, 119,139 2:11 17, 62, 63, 66, 67 2:11-13 62, 64 2:11-14 62 2:12 63 2:13 63, 66 2:14 2, 53, 60, 64, 84, 85, 106

150

Index of Ancient Sources

2:14-15 51, 65, 67 2:14-16 64 2:14-18 64, 66 2:15 65, 82 2:16 66 2:16-18 67 2:17 64, 66, 67, 98, 99n3, 104 2:17-18 66 2:18 22, 66, 67, 104, 135 3:1 98, 99n3 3:1-16 135 3:2 92 3:2-6 134 3:3 92, 100 3:5 92 3:12 125 3:12-15 133 3:14 38 3:16 92 4:1 125 4:1-3 106, 116 4:11 94, 94n85, 125 4:14 2, 41, 86, 99n3, 102, 103, 111 4:14-16 98n1, 106 4:14-5:1-3 110 4:14-5:10 98,102 4:15 2, 19, 21, 22, 86, 99n3, 104, 105, 106, 119, 110, 111 4:16 83, 104, 130, 131, 137 5:1 107 5:2 108 5:1-3 107, 110, 133 5:1-10:18 135 5:4-6 110 5:5 99n3, 114 5:6 99n4, 114 5:7 90, 91, 112 5:7-9 54 5:7-10 111, 133 5:8 2, 2n6, 90, 112, 119 5:8-9 11, 54, 113, 139 5:9 1, 1n1, 16, 23, 54, 98, 139 5:10 15n31, 98,99n3, 100n4, 102 5:11 125 5:11-12 134 5:12-14 133 6:7-8 133

6:9-10 126, 134 6:11-12 125 6:13-18 41 6:16 39 6:19 39, 45n2, 123, 133 6:19-20 114 6:20 41, 99n3, 99n4 7:1-2 115 7:1-10:18 98 7:3 115 7:11 16n31, 17, 18, 18n38 7:11-22 42 7:14 43, 92 7:15 43 7:17 99n4, 115 7:18-19 43 7:19 1n1 7:21 99n4, 115 7:23 109 7:24 17, 104, 109, 119, 120 7:25 121, 130,131 7:26 19, 21, 99n3, 100n11, 103, 109, 114 7:27 115, 116 7:28 1, 1n1, 16, 17, 98, 102, 114,139 8:1 100n3 8:1-2 93, 115 8:1-5 93, 95 8:1-7 116 8:3 115 8:5 92, 94 8:1-9:28 23, 24n62 8:10 117 9:6-7 117 9:6-14 134 9:9 1n1 9:9-10 118 9:11 99n3 9:11-12 100 9:11-14 118 9:13 101 9:14 24n63, 119 9:15 24n62 9:17 39 9:19 92 9:22 117 9:23 94n85

151

Index of Ancient Sources

9:24 7, 101, 103 9:24-26 40, 41, 119 9:25 119 9:26 6, 24, 24n62, 96 10:1 1n1, 94n81, 131 10:10 120 10:10-12:29 135 10:12 6, 8, 99n4 10: 13 99 10:14 1n1 10:19-20 120 10:19-22 114, 120 10: 19-23 98n1 10: 19-25 130n32 10:22 102,131 10:23 116 10:25 124, 124n11, 126 10:28 92 10:32-34 3, 3n10, 126, 127, 128n20 10:35-36 126 10:36 128 11:6 131 11:7 90 11:23-24 92 11:23-28 133 11:28 133 11:32 130n28 11:36-38 128 11:39 116 11:40 1n1

12:1-2 8n12 12:2 8 12:2-3 3 12:3 113 12:3-8 112 12:4 113, 127 12:7-11 21,133 12:7 21,128 12:10 21, 113 12:10-11 22 12:11 21, 133 12:12-13 126 12:18 131 12:18-23 106 12:21 92 12:22 131 12:23 1n1 12:25-26 126 12:28 90, 129n26 13:1n1 70 13:3 123 13:4 123 13:6 131 13:7 129 13:9 38, 124 13:13 128 13:14 123 13:17 129 13:22 136, 138 13:23-24 135 13:24 129

Early Christian Writings 1 Clement 36:1-6 129

36:2-3

129n23

Early Jewish Writings Testament of Levi 2:4 108n36 Letter of Aristeas 11Q Melchizadek

72n7 115n49

Philo De Abrahamo 62-63 (6) 5n4 78-79 87

152 De agricultura 158 (3) 5 n4 De cherubim 35 (2) 5n4 98 84 99-100 85n46 97-101 84 De confusione linguarum 64 94 De Decalogo 108-110 89 De Ebrietate 132-33 94n81 De fuga et Inventione 172 (5) 5n4 De Legatione ad Gaium 67 73 73 74 158 74 89 61n61 De opificio mundi 89 (1) 5n4 26-41 93 De plantatione 91-92 86 De posteritate Caini 122 94 De praemiis et poenis 128 (8) 6n6 De somnis 1.147 87 2.3 94

Index of Ancient Sources

De Virtutibus 157 (8) 6n6 95 84 77 88 175 88 80 88 66 88, 89 51 89 De Vita mosis 1.283 5n4 2.261 5n4 2.275 5n4 1.198 887 1.25-26 88n52 2.74 94n81 1.66-70 100n12 Legum allegoriae 2.61 (1) 5n4 2.87 88n52 2.93 88n52 3.45 88n52 3.131 88n52 Specialibus Legibus 4.209 (8) 6n6 97 89 Qoud Deterius potiori insidiari solet 160 94n81 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 256 94 Josephus Jewish War 4.96 75n16 Against Apion 2.146 76 Jewish Antiquities 15.1 5 n4

153

Index of Ancient Sources

Greco-Roman Writings Aelianus De Natura Animalium 9.13 80 8.12 80 Aelius Aristides Orations 1:203 51 2:241 51 40:12 56 42.1-15 81 39.1-18 81 49.4 82 Apollodorus Library 1.9.15 53 Aristotle Metaphysics 5:16 5n4 Nicomachean Ethics 10:4 5n4 Generation of Animals 3.2.752a 6n6 3.7.757b 6n6 4.7.776a 6n6

Madness of Heracles 698-70 55n39 1252 55 Herodotus Persian War 1.120 5n4 Isocrates To Philip 5.114 55 Julianus Epistulae 78.419B

79

Philostratus Epistle of Apollonius 2. 75 77 Plato Leges 8.834C (10) Politicus 272D (3) Republic 6.487

5n4 6n6

Dio Chrysostom Orations 33.1 51

Symposium 192A 6n6 189D 77

Epictetus Discourses 4.4.35 (2) 5n4 1.15.8 6n6

Plutarch Moralia 608D 71 2.333F 73 758 77 1075E 78

Euripides Alcestis 840-49 52

Lives Caesar 34

6n6

73

154 Caesar 4

Index of Ancient Sources

73

Seneca Hercules Furens 889 52n30 861 58 1.43-52 58 1.176-204 58n56 Sophocles Electra 1508-1510

6n6

Thucydides Peloponnesian War 6.32 (3) 5n4

Xenophon Cyropaedia 1.2.4 6n6, 8.4.7 72, 1.4.1 72n6 4.2.10 72n6 Epigrammata Graecae 1138 57 1027 82 Inscriptiones Graecae 2.4514 79 2.4473 81 Orphic Hymns 12 57, 59 67 82-83

Papyri Oxyryhnchus Papyri 27.2471 27, 30, 31 27.2473 27n4 42.3030 27n4 42.3054 27n4 3.510 27n4 1.63 37 1.68 27n4, 30 3.483 29 2.237 30 2.271 32 2.268 32 22.2349 33 2.286 33, 36 12.1462 34, 36 2.248 36 22.2349 36 1.63 37 2.238 39 27.2471 39 4.705 75 11.1381 83

Tebtunis Papyri 2.316 35, 36 Papyri Fouard 1.57 27n4 1.34 28 1.56 29 Michigan Papyri 9.568-569 34, 36 Rylands Papyri 4.30 76 2.174 29 Amherst Papyri 2.110 27n4 2.111 27n4 2.71 27n4 2.113 27n4 2.112 27n4

Subject Index alexandrian 33, 92, 95 allegory 96f. anaphora 133 apostasy 123f. asclepius 77–83 attestation 3, 25f., 31f., 35–39, 41, 43f., 68f., 139 atticizing 133 beneficence 3f., 48, 50, 59–62, 66–68, 70, 77–79, 83f., 86, 97f., 102, 106, 110, 114, 116, 121, 139 beneficent 3f., 24, 44f., 56, 60, 62, 68–70, 77–79, 81, 83f., 97–99, 104, 106f., 109f., 116, 120–122 benevolent 60f., 75, 84, 104 blood 13, 24, 40, 64, 68, 84, 101, 106, 112f., 117–120, 134 children 7, 48, 54, 62–64, 66, 80, 82, 84, 106, 113 christological titles – Christ 1–3, 5f., 8–11, 14–18, 20–24, 26, 37–44, 47–56, 59–70, 79, 82–86, 90–93, 95, 97–107, 109–121, 124, 128f., 131f., 134f., 138f. – Christ’s 4, 6–12, 15–24, 26, 40f., 43f., 47–49, 53f., 60–69, 85f., 91, 95, 98f., 102–104, 106–120, 124, 130, 132, 134, 138f. christology 2f., 7, 9–11, 19, 26, 37, 40f., 45, 50f., 53, 59–62, 64, 66–68, 70, 83, 91f., 97–99, 102, 104, 107, 115, 122, 130–132 claudian edict 127f. consecration 6, 12–18, 23f. contract 28–31, 33–36, 39f., 42 court 27, 30–32, 34–36, 133 death 2f., 5f., 8–11, 16, 18, 21f., 24, 47–49, 51–53, 57–60, 62,

64–67, 71, 76, 82, 90f., 99, 111, 119, 122, 124 deliberative 133 dualism 93, 95–97 emperor 32–35, 72–76, 101, 127f. epideictic 133f., 138 epistolary 129, 135, 139 eschatological 7–10, 15, 38, 45, 93, 96f., 106 exaltation 3, 6, 8–11, 15, 21, 45, 47, 91, 102f., 115 execution 25, 27, 29–31, 33, 35, 37, 39 exegetical 1–3, 26, 61, 96, 139 exordium 1, 17, 38, 45, 47 faithful 8–10, 12, 22, 45f., 53, 60–64, 66–70, 72, 82f., 98, 100, 102–106, 110, 112–121, 124, 130–132, 139 forensic 133 formal 3, 5–7, 12, 30f., 36, 40, 96, 135 fulfillment 9, 21, 34, 46–48, 54, 62, 94f. genre 132f., 135f., 138f. gentile 123 gethsemane 112 glorification 6–12, 102 glory 1f., 6–9, 21, 45–48, 51, 54, 63, 99f., 102 God 1f., 6–11, 15, 17, 21f., 24, 38–42, 44–51, 55–57, 60–63, 65–68, 70f., 77–82, 84–91, 93, 95, 100–103, 105–107, 109, 111–114, 116–121, 125f., 130–132, 134, 136 Hellenistic-Judaism 84, 91, 92, 96 heracles 50–61, 64, 83

156

Subject Index

High Priest 1f., 5, 11f., 16, 18–20, 23f., 40f., 51, 66, 68f., 86, 93, 96, 98–111, 114, 116–121, 124, 134 homily 134–139 humanity 2, 9f., 18f., 22f., 45–49, 52–56, 58–66, 68f., 71, 74, 77f., 80f., 83–91, 97, 101, 103, 107–110, 114, 119 immortality 51, 53, 56, 59, 78 imperial Period 3, 5, 25, 56, 70, 72f., 76, 78, 83, 124 incarnation 23, 60, 62, 64f., 69, 84f. intimacy 63f., 69, 103, 105f., 114, 117, 119f., 130–132 Jesus 1–12, 15–25, 36, 43, 45–50, 59, 66–68, 86, 90, 97–102, 107, 112–114, 120, 122, 127, 132, 134, 139 Jewish-Christian 123, 123f. josephus 5, 25, 72, 75f., 84 judaism 72, 84, 88, 91f., 96, 123f., 127, 136f. legal 17f., 25, 27, 29f., 33, 35–37, 39–41, 68, 139 lethargy 124 literary 3f., 19, 25f., 37f., 43, 46, 58–60, 68f., 108, 122f., 128, 132–136, 139 Lord 29, 31, 38, 42f., 65, 81f., 84, 93, 112, 116f., 131 material 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 25–31, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 68f., 93f., 114, 125, 128 moses 42, 71f., 75, 84, 88f., 92–94, 96, 100, 116, 134 notarization

27, 37, 39, 139

obedience 2, 11, 19–23, 90f., 111–114 oratory 133f., 138

papyri 3, 25–27, 29–43, 68f., 75f., 139 paraclesis 138 paraenetic 45, 125, 135, 138 pastoral 3, 65, 67, 112f., 130, 132, 135, 138f. perfection 1–4, 6–12, 14–16, 18–26, 31f., 35–37, 39, 41–45, 48, 54, 61, 67–69, 98, 110, 112–114, 119, 130, 139 – perfect 2, 5, 7–12, 16, 22–24, 40f., 48, 68, 99, 107, 113f., 118f., 131 – perfected 2f., 8, 11, 15, 26, 43f., 49, 54, 69f., 111, 119, 139 persecution 65f., 113, 123, 127f., 131f., 139 personality 18–20 philanthropia 55f., 60–62, 64, 66–77, 79, 83–92, 96f., 104, 110, 121, 132, 139 philanthropic 3, 60–62, 66f., 85f., 91, 97f., 102, 104, 106f., 130–132, 139 philo 5f., 25, 61, 72–74, 77, 83–97, 100 philonic 94, 96 plato 5f., 25, 77 platonic 93–96 platonism 93 Priest 5f., 12–19, 21, 24, 40–43, 61, 66, 68, 93, 95, 98–101, 103, 105, 107–111, 114–119, 130, 134 priesthood 5, 14, 17f., 24, 40–44, 53, 98–102, 104, 106–111, 115, 134 proem 137 records office 28f., 31, 35 rhetorical 47f., 122, 129, 133–136 rome 70, 78, 101, 122, 127–130, 132, 139 sacrifice 4, 6, 23f., 40, 47, 52f., 58, 60, 68, 94, 107, 109, 112–114, 116–120, 131 sanctification 12, 15, 62f., 120 sapiential 1

Subject Index

savior 20, 49, 68, 71, 74, 82, 97 sermon 135–139 slave 36f., 51, 68, 71, 73 social alienation 127, 131 social distress 3, 66, 112, 132, 139 social location 122 solidarity 2f., 45, 62–66, 69, 85f., 91, 103, 106, 110, 114, 121, 124 Son 1–3, 7f., 12–14, 16, 18, 20f., 23f., 27f., 30–35, 38f., 45, 48, 57, 60–64, 67–70, 75f., 79, 81f., 84–86, 88, 90, 95, 101–103, 110–115, 117–121, 134–136 – Son of Man 45, 49

157

suffering 1–3, 6–11, 15f., 20–24, 47–49, 51f., 54–56, 62f., 67, 79f., 82, 87, 91, 111–113, 119, 126–128, 139 synagogue 124, 127, 136–139 technical 3, 12, 14–17, 25–27, 30f., 33, 37, 41, 133 temple 79, 81, 93, 100, 124 testing 20, 22, 67, 83, 86, 114 typological 95, 98 wisdom 1, 65, 78, 80f., 88, 92 word of exhortation 136–138

Index of Authors Aitken, E. B. 122 Anderson, D .R. 99, 115 Athanassakis, A. N. 57 Attridge, H. W. 1, 6, 8, 16, 22, 25, 38, 48, 51, 53f., 59, 63, 90–94, 98, 100, 103f., 107–110, 112, 115, 122, 124f., 128f., 133–135, 138f. Aune, D. E. 19, 50f., 53, 55f., 61, 123, 132–134, 137 Behr, C. P. 51, 56 Black, C .C. 136 Black, D. A. 133 Borgen, P. 61, 77, 84, 88f. Bruce, F. F. 23, 47, 66, 103–105, 123f., 127, 135 Buchanan, G. W. 129 Burkert, W. 78, 101 Burns, L. 130, 135f. Cahill, M. 135 Caird, G. B. 22 Clark, N. 9, 64 Coste, J. 112 Cotter, W. 78 Cullmann, O. 19, 21 Dahl, N. A. 130 De Silva 123 Dibelius, M. 15 Donelson, L. R. 2, 98 Doty, W. G. 135 Du Plessis, P. J. 2, 15f., 23, 25f., 114 Duckworth, G. E. 58 Duerksen, P. D. 107, 113 Edelstein, E. J. 78–83 Eisenbaum, P. 122, 124, 130 Ellingworth, P. 16f., 62f., 90f., 103, 108, 123f., 127

Farnell, L. 56f., 78f. Fitch, J. G. 57–60 Galinsky, G. K. 55f., 59f. Gelardini, G. 122, 137 Goodenough, E. R. 93 Grant, M. 11, 31, 49, 52 Grässer, E. 5, 54, 66, 104, 123 Guthrie, D. 19, 50, 56, 61, 66, 98, 104f., 105, 108, 123 Guthrie, G. H. 98, Guthrie, W. K. C. 50, 56, 56f, 61 Häring, T. 12, 14f., 17, 27 Hay, D. M. 99, 100, 115 Héring, J. 129 Hoekma, A. 22f., 113 Höistad, R. 55 Hoppin, R. 129 Horbury, W. 108 Hugedé, N. 107f. Hughes, G. 19, 95, 107f., 123 Hurst, L. D. 93–95 Isaacs, M. E.

2, 7

Jeremias, J. 91 Johnson, L.T. 1f., 8, 29, 45f., 49, 51, 60, 112, 124 Johnston, G. 49 Kaibel, G. 57, 82 Käsemann, E. 9 Kennedy, G. 134 Knox, W. L. 1, 20, 50 Koester, C. R. 1f., 6, 10f., 18, 45f., 60, 99, 101, 122, 124, 129 Kögel, J. 7–9, 22 Konkel, A. 23, 112f. Kurianal, J. 1, 5, 10f., 16, 18, 99 La Rondelle, H. K.

119

159

Index of Authors

Lane, W. 9f., 21, 23, 45, 47f., 51f., 63–65, 90–93, 95, 104–107, 109, 123, 125, 127–130, 132, 135–137 Le Déaut, R. 72 Lindars, B. 10, 95, 123f., 129, 133, 135 Loader, W. R. G. 5 Long, T. G. 20, 33, 38, 55, 80, 87, 101, 116 Manson, T. W. 20 Meeks, W. A. 50 Milligan, G. 27, 127 Mitchell, A. C. 2, 45f., 48, 122, 124, 127, 129 Moffatt, J. 9, 103, 108, 123 Moingt, J. 119 Moulton, J. H. 27 Müller, P. G. 49 Mulloor, A. 124 Pelletier, A. 77 Peterson, D. G. 6, 8, 11, 20–22, 25, 113f., 124, 130 Pfister, F. 50 Pfitzner, V. C. 10, 47, 50, 65, 104, 123f., 127, 129, 134 Pursiful, D. J. 98, 108, 117 Riggenbach, E.

17f.

Robinson, J. A. T. 127 Runia, D. T. 92, 95f. Salevao, I. 122 Saucy, M. 10 Schenker, A. 119 Scholer, J. M. 5f., 16, 19, 21, 100f., 105, 130 Silva, M. 9, 100, 123, 126 Spicq, C. 5, 15, 92, 133 Stedman, R. C. 125 Stegner, W. 137 Swetnam, J. 135f. Thyen, H.

137

Vanhoye, A. 5, 15, 23f., 40, 68, 101, 103, 107, 117, 119, 135 Veldhuizen, M. V. 71, 88 Walters, J. R. 8, 20, 135 Weiss, B. 18 Westcott, B. F. 18f., 21, 66 Wettstein, J. J. 127 Wikgren, A. 19, 54 Williamson, R. 92, 95 Wills, L. 136–139 Windisch, H. 15, 123 Winston, D. 89